Actual weight of 105mm Fujinon-SW vs. 105mm Fujinon-NSW?

[Steve Goldstein]

To be sure, neither of these is a featherweight.

My 105mm NSW (the newer multicoated incarnation, Copal shutter, 77mm filters) weighs 605 grams with retaining ring and caps, 576 grams without according to my not-NIST-traceable kitchen scale. The 1988 Fujinon catalog says 570 grams.

The 1979 catalog says the 105mm SW (single coated, Seiko shutter, 67mm filters) weighs 405 grams, about 30% less than the newer version. Really??

As a side note, that same catalog says the 90mm weighs 20 grams more than the 105mm. Hmmm...

[Oren Grad]

Good question... I added "actual" to the title to drive home that you're not asking for someone to just look up the specifications for you.

[xkaes]

The 1982 literature also lists the NSW 105mm as 570 gr.

I only see the SW as 405 gr. -- it has two fewer lens elements and less metal. That's a third of the glass removed, so I would expect the weight drop to be slightly greater. 405 gr is probably accurate.

[Greg]

My 105mm SW is in a Copal. 77mm filter looks to be right. 571 grams with retaining ring, no caps.

[xkaes]

My 105mm SW is in a Copal. 77mm filter looks to be right. 571 grams with retaining ring, no caps.

If your "SW 105mm" is in a Copal with a 77mm filter, and it weights 571, it's a NSW -- which are marked simply "SW" on the OUTSIDE of the rim. SW lenses are marking INSIDE the rim.

[Mark J]

To be sure, neither of these is a featherweight.
The 1979 catalog says the 105mm SW (single coated, Seiko shutter, 67mm filters) weighs 405 grams, about 30% less than the newer version. Really??

Yes, I recently bought one for that reason, and because it has a smaller rear barrel diameter.
I have it on a board now, but can check the weight tomorrow if you want, however Xkaes is a go-to reference for all the Fuji data.
I expect the NSW performance is better overall, but there are trade-offs.