Difference Between the Blue Ring SK 40-80mm and the non-Blue Ring version?

[teamwiess]

Is there a meaningful difference between the blue ring version of the SK 40-80mm and the non-blue ring version?  Thinking about getting a refurbished version of one or the other.

[cgarnerhome]

I have been using a non-BR 40-80 for a couple of years now and I'm completely satisfied.  Last year, I had the opportunity to use the BR 35/3.5 side by side with my 40-80 and was pleased that there no appreciable difference in the subjects we were shooting.  I have never used the BR 40-80 but my guess is it depends on how good a copy of the non-BR 40-80 you have.  I have requested a loaner of the BR 40-80 so I could do some comparison tests with my non-BR.  BTW, I just tested the BR 75-150 was very happy with the performance - enough so that I ordered one.  I use the XF100.

[matted]

Other than the build quality (and therefore weight!) I think the only “meaningful” difference between BR and non-BR lenses that share the same optical formula is the AF-r feature. And as of right now, the 40-80 BR is not on the list of supported lenses for AF-r AFAIK... not sure if it could or would be added in future though as I suspect the focal length variability would make Phase’s “modeling” of focus/recompose data very complex.

In short, no, I don’t think there is a meaningful difference with that particular lens.

[Steve Hendrix]

Optically, the formula is the same.

The Blue Ring version will allow for the XF to read serial number and therefore differentiate between another 40mm - 80mm lens for focus trimming values, as an example. It is indeed not on the AF-R list so far, but that and other future features could be possible.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[teamwiess]

Thanks all.  Appreciate the input. 

[teamwiess]

After all that I ended up with the 120mm f4 macro which seems like it is a decent lens.  I have enough of the primes between the 40-80 range (really 35 to 80) that the sheer convenience of the 40-80mm wasn't enough at this point.