Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Konica 85/1,8 hexanon AR EE
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
what i disagree is the lens, hexanons 85mm f1.8 shows dreamy effects when taken wide open. dreamy means lack of contrast! it is caused by the coating

I dont agree with that. Have yo read that older Jupiter 9 is sharper wideopen than newer one with new coating? Jupiter 9 MC has dreamy look. why the older one not?
now you mention samyang, I will agree about it performance if you show me some sample


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian and peter q: thank you for your kind posts.
tony


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am new in this manual lens world, but for last one year I do my homework by reading some notes about lens history. Not comprehensively but just few summary of some lenses.
And this is what I've learned so far:

Some lenses were designed to have dreamy/glowing rendering. Like Orio and other members often mentioned.

For example, Jupiter-9 lens.
My older version, the silver one with old coating, is sharper, more contrast and has less glow compared to my new MC version with new coating. The coating in J-9 has more to do with the color. The MC color is more pleasing while the older J-9 color is rather greenish.

Other great example is the Leica Summilux-R 80/1.4.
Summilux-R 80/1.4 is very very expensive lens, and yet it glows severely at f1.4. There is no way that at that time (1982) Leica was behind in coating technology compared to others. The Takumar & Zeiss lens produced in the 60’s were sharp and contrasty. Even Biotar 75 produced in the 50’s is very sharp.
It was designed that way. They call it Mandler glow.
Like other member said before, there was time/era when lens designer designed the lens that way.

For me, the sharpness is not the main goal when I am (and I believe other people) exploring manual lens world. But it's different rendering character that can not be found in modern lens.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixland wrote:
Thanks for sharing IAZA.

This lens was one of my dream lens once, before I knew that Konica lens is not adaptable to Canon FF without saving mirror Smile (I am still stay with FF and not have plan to buy a mirrorless cam Very Happy )

By the way, is it still adaptable to APSC camera?

How many version does this 85/1.8 have?


no. You do not need to shave the mirror.
However, proper modification is very complex.
It is necessary to cut the helix and alter the aperture driver.


other photos taken whith Canon 5D2 (http://s284.photobucket.com/albums/ll26/x6_photo/Lenses/Hexanon85/)

I have one lens for sale. Allready adapted for canon.
pic1
pic1


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixland wrote:
[. . . ] For me, the sharpness is not the main goal when I am (and I believe other people) exploring manual lens world. But it's different rendering character that can not be found in modern lens.


Well, "Amen" to that! I'm with Nixland in this sentiment, one hundred percent.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is going too far I guess.
You dont like dreamy, no need to say its bad, specially when you're in public forum where many other people like that. unless that's what you really want to.
Have fun with your lenses
Tony; You dont need to reply. wasting time


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read this long thread and would like to comment about glow and flares:

Glow and flare are not the same thing. I have often read glow associated with coating considerations. Glow does not depend on the coating. Glow is a consequence of an optical phenomenon called spherical aberration, which takes place in all lenses that use spherical glass elements. Lens makers do build lenses considering this aspect and taking measures to control it. The degree of that control depends on the quality of the lens design and materials, but also on artistic choices.
Like I mentioned already, the older Jupiter-9 designs do not glow wide open. The rangefinder J9 and the first version of J9 for reflex (the one with aluminium barrel) were build to a strict control of spherical aberration - no wonder, as they are literal copies of Zeiss Sonnar lenses. This control allows the lens to be quite sharp also wide open, which is when (due to shape of glass) spherical aberration hits harder. There is a side effect of this strict control of spherical aberration and it's in the bokeh, which becomes "harsher" in the highlights, and more abrupt in the transitions.
After the commercial success of romantic portraiture in the 70s, many users demanded portrait lenses that would offer that romantic glow wide open. Many photographers started to modify their lenses to obtain that look (a famous English photographer did use a Tair 300mm lens with inverted second element to obtain that strong spherical aberration. I have one copy of such a modified Tair).
Badly built, or purposedly altered, copies of silver J9 did also have accentuated spherical aberration, and the lens became fashionable, so that sometimes in the 70s and 80s the LZOS factory redesigned the new production of Jupiter-9 lenses to offer more spherical aberration wide open, like portrait photographers demanded. This was obtained basically by different shape of the front glass at the edges. Stopping down, and using the central portion of glass only, the lens was extremely sharp as it always used to be.
There is a reason why Zeiss, who masters the production of top quality lenses, and surely has no problem in facing any glass construction issues, has not updated the design of the classic 1.4/85 Planar lens with the use of aspherical glass like most portrait tele lenses use today. The reason is that the aspherical glass would improve the performance but would also alter the look of the photographs in a way that would strongly differ from the classical Zeiss look of the old Planar. Zeiss knows that, and knows that their customers still want that 1.4/85 Planar look in the lens mounts of today, no matter if there are defects (such as spherical and chromatic aberrations) that come with it. Photographers who know the lens and what it can give are ready to pay that price to have that 1.4/85 Planar look for their portraits.
Like I said, coating has nothing to do with glow. It has to do with flare, which is a different (and much uglier) thing. Flares are internal reflections that are caused by light rays bouncing between the glass elements of the lens. Flares happen regardless of the type of glass shape (spherical or aspherical). Flares can be controlled by use of coatings, which (I explain for newbies) are vaporized metal layers that are deposited on the glass elements to prevent those inner reflections that cause flares.
Flares can be, in some very controlled situations, also an aesthetical instrument for portrait shots, but they are much more difficult to master. Glow instead can be precisely controlled with the lens aperture, and does not "ruin" a picture like flare can - glow simply creates an effect that can be liked or not, but which does not affect the image quality outside of it's "boundaries" like flare does - what I mean is that flare may be sometimes a nice touch in some situations, but in addition to create that effect, flare also reduces the contrast and alters the colours of the rest of the image, something that glow does not.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Orio, very usefull information. that's clear something.
Dolo, you compare different distance. you should post similar distance & object, and your picture should be cropped 100 % on the focused area.
sorry to say I'm not impressed with that sample


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:

There is a reason why Zeiss, who masters the production of top quality lenses, and surely has no problem in facing any glass construction issues, has not updated the design of the classic 1.4/85 Planar lens with the use of aspherical glass like most portrait tele lenses use today. The reason is that the aspherical glass would improve the performance but would also alter the look of the photographs in a way that would strongly differ from the classical Zeiss look of the old Planar. Zeiss knows that, and knows that their customers still want that 1.4/85 Planar look in the lens mounts of today, no matter if there are defects (such as spherical and chromatic aberrations) that come with it. Photographers who know the lens and what it can give are ready to pay that price to have that 1.4/85 Planar look for their portraits.


Nice informative post Orion !!

Just to add that Leica also tottaly lost their "Leica Glow"of the Mandler area with the introduction of ASPH lenses and it's also quite funny in another example to see that Zeiss could outclase the then first Canon L f1.2 line without the use of ASPH element in their "xxxth Jahre" lenses by using superior glass mix vs asph elements just to keep the Zeiss signature ...


Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IAZA wrote:
Thanks Orio, very usefull information. that's clear something.
Dolo, you compare different distance. you should post similar distance & object, and your picture should be cropped 100 % on the focused area.
sorry to say I'm not impressed with that sample


ive never been impressed by the samyang, though many on the forum like it. i find it renders flat with unappealing lack of color. i'm not even impressed by it,s sharpness, though again many here are. to me it is not even a contest between ANY of the lenses we discussed and the samyang, but that is only my opinion.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I owned the Samyang previously and it was extremely Sharp wide open. Sharper than my silver j9 and.nearly as Sharp as the Planar. I preferred the Zeiss look and POP though, so sold it.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if I have many stunning 85mm lens I still plan to buy a Samyang , to support Samyang I think great thing , due they sell excellent lenses on affordable price and they are manual lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Even if I have many stunning 85mm lens I still plan to buy a Samyang , to support Samyang I think great thing , due they sell excellent lenses on affordable price and they are manual lenses.

+1 I hope they get enough money to continue, I also plan to buy Samyang, the 14 or 8mm look attractive


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here comes Ye Olde Thread Resurrector. I recently purchased a Konica Hexanon AR 85mm/1.8, out of curiosity, respect for Hexanon and because it came in a relatively cheap package. I already fell into respect with a Canon FD 85mm/1.8, which has become one of my most-used lenses (especially for near-stage concert photography). I later found a reasonably-priced, mint FDn 85mm/1.2 L, which I only have used when I know the venue is going to have cave-like (lack of) lighting. Heavy! And I'm scared I'll scratch it.

The AR 85 has a clearly more robust build and is longer and heavier than the FDn 85mm/1.8 (399 vs 336g). The AR has six aperture blades, the FDn eight. With respective adapters for Sony E-mount, the AR is 12mm longer--about the space for two lens caps. The AR is threaded for 55mm, the FDn 52mm.

They both can help produce great images, obviously. I suppose it's a question of color rendition, bokeh and 2D+ pop. The FD can produce lovely Impressionistic bokeh, I've found. I've only played with the AR a little and--so far--it has busy bokeh. Right now, I can't see any justification to switch from Canon but they're both superb vintage lenses IMO.

Taken with Sony A7R3 using a focusing helicoid adapter. Minimal editing from the JPEG. Uncropped.



PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
...
I know three version of this lens, EE this les, AE latest one and earliest Konishiroku made for Konica F (I never see any perhaps it is not exists)


Here they are:



Stephan