Weight of the K series 105mm F2.8

Adam · 10-17-2020, 08:39 PM

Regarding the SMC Pentax 105mm F2.8 lens (https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-K-105mm-F2.8-Lens.html):

It has been brought to my attention that the weight we originally specified in the database, 331g, was incorrect. Upon checking the original K-series Pentax manual, it looks like the correct weight should be 294g. However, other sites on the web indicate a different weight.

So, if you have this lens, could you please weigh it (without hood/caps) and post the result here? I will update the DB if/as appropriate. Thanks!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

**GUB** · 10-17-2020, 09:47 PM

SMC Pentax K 105mm f2.8 Serial 5211055 = 304gm

EDIT For calibration purposes same scales - SMC Pentax K 50mm f1.4 serial number 1091695 = 271gms (reviews say 265gm)

Ole · 10-18-2020, 03:01 AM

SMC Pentax 1:2.8/105 S/N 5038087: 306g

**habrune** · 10-19-2020, 01:52 PM

Hello Adam, yes that was me, and on a fairly accurate balance the 105mm K 2.8 measured 304 grams.
I discovered another possible adjustment: The SMC PENTAX-A 50mm f/2.8 macro is possibly 50mm long, the 40mm as the description on its page says cannot be true.

Wasp · 10-19-2020, 03:43 PM

I like this sort of attention to detail!

**GUB** · 10-19-2020, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by habrune

I discovered another possible adjustment: The SMC PENTAX-A 50mm f/2.8 macro is possibly 50mm long, the 40mm as the description on its page says cannot be true.

Yep 50mm minimum from mounting flange to front edge at infinity.

**GUB** · 10-19-2020, 07:49 PM - **1 Like**

Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic.
Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough.

stevebrot · 10-19-2020, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by GUB

Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic.

I only have one, purchased fall of 1982...

180gm ser.# 6596445

I prefer to think the lower weight was due to different and better grades of helicoid and aperture mechanism lubricants. Just kidding of course, though I have carried that lens over many miles of rugged trail and off-trail routes in conditions ranging from well below freezing to desert heat. Despite having never been coddled, focus action is still smooth and well-damped and the aperture action is still snappy and without slop.

Six grams is not very much, the mass of 0.2 fluid ounces of water.

Steve

**GUB** · 10-19-2020, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I only have one, purchased fall of 1982...

180gm ser.# 6596445

I prefer to think the lower weight was due to different and better grades of helicoid and aperture mechanism lubricants. Just kidding of course, though I have carried that lens over many miles of rugged trail and off-trail routes in conditions ranging from well below freezing to desert heat. Despite having never been coddled, focus action is still smooth and well-damped and the aperture action is still snappy and without slop.

Six grams is not very much, the mass of 0.2 fluid ounces of water.

Steve

"can of worms" was perhaps a mite enthusiastic

Given that brass has a specific gravity of around 8 it represents less than 1cubic mm . A tiny sliver of brass somewhere.
I was most surprised that the variation corresponded with the serial number.

leekil · 10-19-2020, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by GUB

Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic.
Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough.

I assume you weighed them without the front or rear caps?

**GUB** · 10-19-2020, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by leekil

I assume you weighed them without the front or rear caps?

Yes.
Just weighed my M50 f2s (3 of them) The serial 4.8million loses 6g to the 4.1 million and earlier ones. (166g and 160g.)
EDIT All metal lens barrels

stevebrot · 10-19-2020, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by GUB

Given that brass has a specific gravity of around 8 it represents less than 1cubic mm .

750mm^3 = 6000 mm^3 ÷ 8

A somewhat larger sliver of brass.

Steve

**GUB** · 10-19-2020, 11:57 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

750mm^3 = 6000 mm^3 ÷ 8

A somewhat larger sliver of brass.

Steve

Ouch yes - only about three decimal points out. !

Given that the one with the 4mill serial had its own intermediate weight it would suggest there was two changes.
But it could be as basic as a brass element separator going plastic.
Despite these variations I was wondering if the M50 1.7 was a good calibrator for our various scales.

glasbak · 10-20-2020, 03:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by GUB

Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic.
Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough.

I identified three slightly different versions of the M 1:1.7 50mm lens long (20 years?) ago.
Somewhere I must have a picture explaining those, but where...
It was mainly in the finish, the oldest version had the best finish/engravings.

**TwoUptons** · 10-25-2020, 02:53 PM

Clearly, the weight differences are due to photonics impaction...
All of the photons that have gone through the lens have left their marks...

The light ones just haven’t taken as many pictures...

OK, as none of that is true, I expect it’s sample variation for an item that had a lot of hand work in it....

-Eric

10-17-2020, 08:39 PM	#1
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Weight of the K series 105mm F2.8 Regarding the SMC Pentax 105mm F2.8 lens (https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-K-105mm-F2.8-Lens.html): It has been brought to my attention that the weight we originally specified in the database, 331g, was incorrect. Upon checking the original K-series Pentax manual, it looks like the correct weight should be 294g. However, other sites on the web indicate a different weight. So, if you have this lens, could you please weigh it (without hood/caps) and post the result here? I will update the DB if/as appropriate. Thanks! Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC K series 30mm f2.8 and M series 35mm f2	davidgreen3003	Sold Items	15	01-10-2014 01:30 PM
Who wants to lose some weight (a weight loss challenge!)	jct us101	General Talk	290	05-03-2013 11:49 AM
Pentax 16-50 F2.8 vs Tamron 17-50 F2.8 - Questions about size/weight ?	photoleet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-04-2013 10:54 PM
Tamron Adaptall MC 105mm f2.5 vs. the Tamron Adapt-a-matic 105mm f2.5	Pepe Guitarra	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	03-25-2012 01:34 PM

10-17-2020, 09:47 PM	#2
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	SMC Pentax K 105mm f2.8 Serial 5211055 = 304gm EDIT For calibration purposes same scales - SMC Pentax K 50mm f1.4 serial number 1091695 = 271gms (reviews say 265gm)

10-18-2020, 03:01 AM	#3
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,408	SMC Pentax 1:2.8/105 S/N 5038087: 306g

10-19-2020, 01:52 PM	#4
habrune Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Amersfoort Posts: 8	Hello Adam, yes that was me, and on a fairly accurate balance the 105mm K 2.8 measured 304 grams. I discovered another possible adjustment: The SMC PENTAX-A 50mm f/2.8 macro is possibly 50mm long, the 40mm as the description on its page says cannot be true.

10-19-2020, 03:43 PM	#5
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,661	I like this sort of attention to detail!

10-19-2020, 06:02 PM	#6
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by habrune I discovered another possible adjustment: The SMC PENTAX-A 50mm f/2.8 macro is possibly 50mm long, the 40mm as the description on its page says cannot be true. Yep 50mm minimum from mounting flange to front edge at infinity.

10-19-2020, 07:49 PM - 1 Like	#7
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic. Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough.

10-19-2020, 10:25 PM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by GUB Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic. I only have one, purchased fall of 1982... 180gm ser.# 6596445 I prefer to think the lower weight was due to different and better grades of helicoid and aperture mechanism lubricants. Just kidding of course, though I have carried that lens over many miles of rugged trail and off-trail routes in conditions ranging from well below freezing to desert heat. Despite having never been coddled, focus action is still smooth and well-damped and the aperture action is still snappy and without slop. Six grams is not very much, the mass of 0.2 fluid ounces of water. Steve

10-19-2020, 11:18 PM	#9
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by stevebrot I only have one, purchased fall of 1982... 180gm ser.# 6596445 I prefer to think the lower weight was due to different and better grades of helicoid and aperture mechanism lubricants. Just kidding of course, though I have carried that lens over many miles of rugged trail and off-trail routes in conditions ranging from well below freezing to desert heat. Despite having never been coddled, focus action is still smooth and well-damped and the aperture action is still snappy and without slop. Six grams is not very much, the mass of 0.2 fluid ounces of water. Steve "can of worms" was perhaps a mite enthusiastic Given that brass has a specific gravity of around 8 it represents less than 1cubic mm . A tiny sliver of brass somewhere. I was most surprised that the variation corresponded with the serial number.

10-19-2020, 11:27 PM	#10
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Originally posted by GUB Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic. Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough. I assume you weighed them without the front or rear caps?

10-19-2020, 11:34 PM	#11
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by leekil I assume you weighed them without the front or rear caps? Yes. Just weighed my M50 f2s (3 of them) The serial 4.8million loses 6g to the 4.1 million and earlier ones. (166g and 160g.) EDIT All metal lens barrels

10-19-2020, 11:41 PM	#12
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by GUB Given that brass has a specific gravity of around 8 it represents less than 1cubic mm . 750mm^3 = 6000 mm^3 ÷ 8 A somewhat larger sliver of brass. Steve

10-19-2020, 11:57 PM - 1 Like	#13
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	Originally posted by stevebrot 750mm^3 = 6000 mm^3 ÷ 8 A somewhat larger sliver of brass. Steve Ouch yes - only about three decimal points out. ! Given that the one with the 4mill serial had its own intermediate weight it would suggest there was two changes. But it could be as basic as a brass element separator going plastic. Despite these variations I was wondering if the M50 1.7 was a good calibrator for our various scales.

10-20-2020, 03:02 PM - 1 Like	#14
glasbak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Netherlands Posts: 369	Originally posted by GUB Well that opened an interesting can of worms. I have 8 x M50 1.7. Thought I would weigh them and see how consistent the weight was. 4 @ 183 - 1 @ 186 - 3 @189/90. Serials for the 4 were all 6million the one was 4 million and the 3 was 3million. Guessing it was a trend from metal to plastic. Moral of the story = +-5g is near enough. I identified three slightly different versions of the M 1:1.7 50mm lens long (20 years?) ago. Somewhere I must have a picture explaining those, but where... It was mainly in the finish, the oldest version had the best finish/engravings.

10-25-2020, 02:53 PM	#15
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,215	Clearly, the weight differences are due to photonics impaction... All of the photons that have gone through the lens have left their marks... The light ones just haven’t taken as many pictures... OK, as none of that is true, I expect it’s sample variation for an item that had a lot of hand work in it.... -Eric