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 Hexanon AR 135mm f2.5 v's Vivitar Series 1 135mm f2.3
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to add that stevemark's opinions and tests on this forum and on his own site are pretty reliable.
It is my own experience . I would not say the same about everybody on this thread.
You should not loose your temper . It is about glasses not persons.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
I would like to add that stevemark's opinions and tests on this forum and on his own site are pretty reliable.


+1 !


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK guys, come on, this bickering at each other is not helpful to anyone. Let's get back to what we all enjoy talking about, mf lenses. Thank you!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laugh 1 Sometimes Ed it is like Guinness......"Good for you"


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A person need not be rude to look smart. I do not see how offending the other members makes the forum any better.
Maybe this article can help you deal with rude people:

"10 Smart Ways to Deal with Rude People"


http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/10-smart-ways-deal-with-rude-people.html


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think this is still the best such forum on the web, and like with all such large gatherings, some people know little, some know quite a bit, and some will be walking encyclopedias. I think such a group works best when all members remember and try to accommodate such differences, There are others too, like personal preferences in photo gear, favorite type of photography, different experience and, last but not least, the fact the English is not everyone's native tongue here. Let's all try to give everyone a little slack, even when something irritating comes up. With a little good will, we can all get along. But that's just my take on it. YMMV. May the Light be with all of you Smile


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....


History is interesting sometimes.
iangreenhalgh1 joined 18 march 2011
stevemark joined 29 april 2011
Short period between this to enjoy Whoo Turtle
I cannot remember me the difference.


I experienced a year and two months before it all started.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:
I think this is still the best such forum on the web, and like with all such large gatherings, some people know little, some know quite a bit, and some will be walking encyclopedias. I think such a group works best when all members remember and try to accommodate such differences, There are others too, like personal preferences in photo gear, favorite type of photography, different experience and, last but not least, the fact the English is not everyone's native tongue here. Let's all try to give everyone a little slack, even when something irritating comes up. With a little good will, we can all get along. But that's just my take on it. YMMV. May the Light be with all of you Smile


Yes, this is still a goof forum, although I have noticed a fall off in participation. There are still many posts in history that provide a wealth of information. As pointed out by konicamera, it is important to recognize differences and respect them when not offensive. If it were possible to search on such things as conflict, insult, or obnoxious, you would find a common denominator in the form of a single member in most, this thread not excepted.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
Laugh 1 Sometimes Ed it is like Guinness......"Good for you"


Laugh 1 Or, sometimes it makes you feel like turning to drink!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Come on guys, we all have different kit to start with, what works for one guy and one combination may not work for another, good lens copies and bad ones, good technique and bad technique, there are too many variables for a one cap fits all. Lastly if you are feeling a bit male menapausal have a nice brandy or something!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hope this thread gets cleaned up by an admin. There is simply no excuse to be calling other members school yard names. When participants have a difference of opinion, you play the ball and not the man.

All other forums I frequent have a report button on each message to help the community police itself and bring 'uncharacteristic' posts to the attention of the admins so they can be nipped in the bud so to speak.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PS, going back to the original thread, I love my Viv f2.3!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mr G wrote:
PS, going back to the original thread, I love my Viv f2.3!


Me too.





PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is certainly a stunning lens....Photographer not bad either Wink .. Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
It is certainly a stunning lens....Photographer not bad either Wink

Agreed on both counts !!!

The VS1 135/2.3 is a sweet lens -- my ~only~ negative comment is that it sometimes purple fringes in high-contrast situations (but, of course, this is not uncommon, especially with older lenses). I have no experience with Hexanons, so I can't make any comparison.

Just one more comment, actually -- the 135/2.3's sibling, the VS1 200/3, is (not surprisingly) pretty similar in its qualities.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really like that second one Woodrim.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
135/2.5, 135/3.2.... What about my 135/3.5? Too many versions out there. Smile


I only know the newer of the two Hexanon 3.5/135mm computations (that one with rubber focusing ring; see Alex Buhl for details: http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35.html); it performs quite similar to the two other lenses from f4 on. It has a tad more CAs than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm, and may have a tiny bit less corner resoultion than the Hexanon AR 3.2/135, but one will see these differences only in direct comparison.
In practical photogaphy, of course, the f2.5 dissolves background visibly better than the f3.5, and both the f2.5 as well as the f3.2 focus closer than the f3.5 (1.2m and 1.0m vs 1.5m minimal focusing distance).

Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
135/2.5, 135/3.2.... What about my 135/3.5? Too many versions out there. Smile


I only know the newer of the two Hexanon 3.5/135mm computations (that one with rubber focusing ring; see Alex Buhl for details: http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35.html); it performs quite similar to the two other lenses from f4 on. It has a tad more CAs than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm, and may have a tiny bit less corner resoultion than the Hexanon AR 3.2/135, but one will see these differences only in direct comparison.
In practical photogaphy, of course, the f2.5 dissolves background visibly better than the f3.5, and both the f2.5 as well as the f3.2 focus closer than the f3.5 (1.2m and 1.0m vs 1.5m minimal focusing distance).

Stephan


Any different opinion is welcome !! Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
135/2.5, 135/3.2.... What about my 135/3.5? Too many versions out there. Smile


I only know the newer of the two Hexanon 3.5/135mm computations (that one with rubber focusing ring; see Alex Buhl for details: http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35.html); it performs quite similar to the two other lenses from f4 on. It has a tad more CAs than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm, and may have a tiny bit less corner resoultion than the Hexanon AR 3.2/135, but one will see these differences only in direct comparison.
In practical photogaphy, of course, the f2.5 dissolves background visibly better than the f3.5, and both the f2.5 as well as the f3.2 focus closer than the f3.5 (1.2m and 1.0m vs 1.5m minimal focusing distance).

Stephan


Any different opinion is welcome !! Wink


There are 4 different Hexanon AR 135mm lenses, one Hexanon ARP (preset) lens, and one Hexar AR 135/3.5 lens. They are (in order of introduction)

- 1) 135/3.5 Hexanon AR. This lens goes back to the Konica’s F-mount era and was first made in 1961. In 1965 it was given a AR mount and it remained in production until about 1970, when it was replaced by the 135/3.2 AR. This lens can be found with an aluminum DOF ring or entirely black. It doesn’t exist with a rubber focusing ring. It has a 4e/4g construction and its aperture closes to f16.

- 2) 135/3.2 Hexanon AR. This lens first appeared in 1970 and was in production until the end of 1977. For the first two years it has an aluminum DOF ring AND a rubber focusing ring (a rare combination among Hexanons - I call them the hybrid lenses and there are 6 different ones). From late 1972, they lost the aluminum DOF ring and were entirely black from then on. It has a 5e/4g construction and its aperture closes to f16.

- 3) 135/f2.5 Hexanon AR. This lens was introduced in early 1973 and was entirely black with a rubber focusing ring from the beginning to the end of production – in late 1981. It has a 5e/4g construction and its aperture closes to f16.

- 4) 135/3.5 Hexar AR. This lens, one of three Hexar AR lenses, was intended as an entry level lens. It is thus less performing, cheaper, and heavier, but still a very respectable lens. It was introduced in early 1975 and produced until 1979. Probably of third-party manufacturer, but I doubt the rumor about Tamron. It has a 4e/4g construction and its aperture closes to f16

- 5) 135/f3.5 Hexanon AR. This lens was introduced in early 1978 and replaced the 135/3.2. It is an entirely different lens from the early 135/3.5 in that it is far more compact, and has a 5e/4g construction, like the 135/3.2. It remained in production until the end of 1981. Its aperture closes to f22

- 6) 135/f3.5 Hexanon ARP. This lens also dates from the F-mount era and was introduced in 1961. It was also given an AR mount in 1965 and remained in production until 1969, or at least was available in trade until that year. It has a 4e/4g construction and 12 aperture blades that close to f22.

How any of these lenses compare to each other, or to those of other manufacturers, in terms of CA, flare control, micro-contrast, sharpness, bokeh, etc, at f2.8, f4, f8, etc. I have never been tempted to explore. They all have their drawbacks and advantages, which are more or less apparent depending on what type of photography they are used for. Nos 1, 2 and 5 were Konica’s 135mm all-purpose workhorse in their respective periods. All three are excellent lenses, but of the three, only the second one has any traits that make it stand out - sharpness and its close focusing distance. The general view among Konica users is that the 135/3.2 is indeed the sharpest of all 135mm Hexanons. No. 3 is known for its pleasant color rendition, for its bokeh and for its propensity for flare, given its shallow light shade and a 62mm wide front element.

Hope this helps.

EDIT No. 6 is obviously not listed by order of introduction. Duh.... Smile

Last edited by konicamera on Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:

There are 4 different Hexanon AR 135mm lenses, one Hexanon ARP (preset) lens, and one Hexar AR 135/3.5 lens. They are (in order of introduction)


Nice summary with good information. Thank you.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
konicamera wrote:

There are 4 different Hexanon AR 135mm lenses, one Hexanon ARP (preset) lens, and one Hexar AR 135/3.5 lens. They are (in order of introduction)


Nice summary with good information. Thank you.


Yes, excellent JJ. Like 1 Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:

...

- 5) 135/f3.5 Hexanon AR. This lens was introduced in early 1978 and replaced the 135/3.2. It is an entirely different lens from the early 135/3.5 in that it is far more compact, and has a 5e/4g construction, like the 135/3.2. It remained in production until the end of 1981. Its aperture closes to f22

...

Hope this helps.



According to printed information from Konica, all three 3.5/135 lenses (two Hexanon and on Hexar) have the classical Ernostar [4/4] construction. The two Hexanon 3.5/135mm lens sections can be found here:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35.html

The Hexar lens section can be found here:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35Hexar.html

I can confirm Alex Buhl's lens sections, since i have the corresponding Konica leaflets as well. Where did you find the [5/4] lens section for the later f22 Hexanon AR 3.5/135mm?

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
konicamera wrote:

...

- 5) 135/f3.5 Hexanon AR. This lens was introduced in early 1978 and replaced the 135/3.2. It is an entirely different lens from the early 135/3.5 in that it is far more compact, and has a 5e/4g construction, like the 135/3.2. It remained in production until the end of 1981. Its aperture closes to f22

...

Hope this helps.



According to printed information from Konica, all three 3.5/135 lenses (two Hexanon and on Hexar) have the classical Ernostar [4/4] construction. The two Hexanon 3.5/135mm lens sections can be found here:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35.html

The Hexar lens section can be found here:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e135_35Hexar.html

I can confirm Alex Buhl's lens sections, since i have the corresponding Konica leaflets as well. Where did you find the [5/4] lens section for the later f22 Hexanon AR 3.5/135mm?

Stephan


Sorry about this. It's a mistake. That lens does indeed have a 4/4 construction.
Incidentally, Mr Buhl's first name is Andreas.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:

...
Incidentally, Mr Buhl's first name is Andreas.


Thanks for that correction Smile !

Stephan

EDIT i'll add a small test of the three "rubber focus ring" 135mm Hexanons tomorrow (AR 2.5/135mm, 3.2/135mm, and 3.5/135mm).


PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
konicamera wrote:

...
Incidentally, Mr Buhl's first name is Andreas.


Thanks for that correction Smile !

Stephan

EDIT i'll add a small test of the three "rubber focus ring" 135mm Hexanons tomorrow (AR 2.5/135mm, 3.2/135mm, and 3.5/135mm).


Excellent as I've often wondered how my 135mm f3.5 compares with the others Hexanons.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3