View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tracy
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 Posts: 4 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tracy wrote:
Thank you so much for the recommendations. I will take a look at them and see which ones I can add to my kit
I’m so pleased I found this great site
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Tracy wrote: |
for the welcome and both your replies Your advice is very much appreciated.
Which others of the Konica lenses would be good to add to my kit please?
|
That depends on
1) what you want to do with these additional lenses
2) how much you want to spend
Nice cheap lenses are e. g. the AR 3.5/28mm, the 1.8/40mm and the 1.4/57mm or 1.4/50mm.
Always useful (portraits, landscape) is a 200mm lens such as the AR 3.5/200mm (heavy, sharp) or the AR 4/200mm (lighter, slightly less sharp and more CAs)
Nice to have may be a AR 1.8/85mm (close range portraits, general photography) or a 2/35mm (classic lens with a distinct "vintag" lokk, i. e. not very sharp wide open).
Very useful for landscapes is the 4/21mm or the 2.8/21mm. Both usually are quite expensive.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dachs
Joined: 03 May 2015 Posts: 35
|
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:35 am Post subject: Konica Hexanon F3.2-135mm |
|
|
Dachs wrote:
Hello,
hereby some example pics showing our lovely Mira-Walpurga.
I do not remember to the aperture setting.
Best regards Dachs _________________ Dachs |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yoyomaoz
Joined: 31 Jul 2018 Posts: 89 Location: Adelaide
|
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
yoyomaoz wrote:
I have on the past few weeks bought one of these on the strength of their terrific reputation which suggests it is on of Konica's best performers. If so then it must be good as that marque seems to have pretty much universally a solid reputation for having made really excellent lenses. (I am just beginning to try a few of them). Intervening events have prevented me from testing my new 135mm f3.2 in the interim but given the excellent images represented in this thread I am looking forward to doing so. I will post some images when they are available. _________________ Peter M
Flickr me: https://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/
Articles on Style and Mood in Photography
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/11/24/character-style-and-mood-in-photography-by-peter-maynard/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/12/02/character-style-and-mood-in-photography-part-2-by-peter-maynard/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/01/10/character-style-and-mood-in-photography-part-3-by-peter-maynard/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote: |
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8 |
I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8 |
I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.
Stephan |
Thank you Stephan, very much.
I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.
In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.
All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you. In the normal lenses, now I use the Mamiya SX 55/1,8. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8 |
I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.
Stephan |
Thank you Stephan, very much.
I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.
In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.
All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you. In the normal lenses, now I use the Mamiya SX 55/1,8. |
Yes Stephan and Papasito.
I agree with Papasito on both counts from my experience as well.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1554 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
I have one of those Rolleinar 135mm 2.8 and a Hexanon 135mm 3.2. I'm curious now and want to test them against each other.
The Hexanon was really good on its own when used the last time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote: |
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8 |
Oldhand wrote: |
Yes Stephan and Papasito.
I agree with Papasito on both counts from my experience as well.
Tom |
Are we talking about the same Mamiya 2.8/135mm lens? I'm not a Mamiya expert, and i don't know the optical construction of all the different Mamiya and Rollei variants. However, the weight of the different 2.8/135mm variants is that different that I suspect different optical constructions as well:
Mamiya Sekor TL / DTL: 395 g
Mamiya Sekor SX (M42) 500 g
Mamiya Sekor ES: ???
Mamiya Sekor CS: 315 g
Mamiya Sekor E / EF: 310 g
Rollei (Mamiya): 305 g
When I was comparing the (heavy!) SX variant with the Konica Hexanon 3.2/135mm, the Hexanon was clearly inferior (infinity range, wide open and f5.6).
Stephan
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.
In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.
All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with.
As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.
In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.
All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with.
As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom |
Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
At least with my copies, the hexanon is very sharp at close focus.
I have two of them, and the newer has more contrast with similar resolution power than the older. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.
In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.
All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with. |
Ah OK, I did misunderstand that!
Oldhand wrote: |
As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom |
I don't own the Rolleinar, and I've never seen a copy of it. It looks like a re-badged SX, and some people on the German digicamclub report, that the widely published weight of the Rolleinar ("305 g") is wrong. These owners report about 500g, which would be in line with the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote: |
Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
... |
I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1554 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
The lens and weight:
#1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Paulius
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 321 Location: Connecticut
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paulius wrote:
I have a Hexanon 135/3,5. As I understood your lens is capable for close up's. IQ is wonderful! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
... |
I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?
Stephan |
I have two 135/3,2.
The older is equal in contrast than my SX.
The newer has more contrast of all of them.
The older 3,2 has haze |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Paulius
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 321 Location: Connecticut
|
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paulius wrote:
This morning I find two Hexanons on flea market, 135/3,2 and 57/1,4 !
135/3,2 is really great. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Paulius wrote: |
This morning I find two Hexanons on flea market, 135/3,2 and 57/1,4 !
135/3,2 is really great. |
Both lenses are excellent when you use them to their strengths.
Lucky find
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1121
|
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
blotafton wrote: |
The lens and weight:
#1
|
Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one??? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
papasito wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
... |
I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?
Stephan |
I have two 135/3,2.
The older is equal in contrast than my SX.
The newer has more contrast of all of them.
The older 3,2 has haze |
Now I have a second SX 135/2,8 lens.
IT's near New.
Great lens!!!!!
I can't fine any difference between the IQ of IT and my newer Hexanon 135/3,2, except the mamiya is warmer rendering.
One have to be sold and do not know which.
Both are so nice lens!!!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
papasito wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
... |
I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?
Stephan |
I have two 135/3,2.
The older is equal in contrast than my SX.
The newer has more contrast of all of them.
The older 3,2 has haze |
Now I have a second SX 135/2,8 lens.
IT's near New.
Great lens!!!!!
I can't fine any difference between the IQ of IT and my newer Hexanon 135/3,2, except the mamiya is warmer rendering.
One have to be sold and do not know which.
Both are so nice lens!!!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1554 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
blotafton wrote: |
The lens and weight:
#1
|
Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one??? |
It's not that heavy for me. A Hexanon 135mm 2.5? I don't have one unfortunately, but it seems people like it and I'd say that the price is ok if you're specifically looking for one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
blotafton wrote: |
The lens and weight:
|
Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one??? |
The Mamyia SX 2.8/135mm is 505g (similar to the famous [4/4] Rokkors). The Konica AR 2.5/135mm is 665g, and the nFD 2.9/135mm is 677g. So yes, both the SX and the AR 2.5/135mm are heavy lenses.
Is the AR 2.5/135mm worth 40 Euros? I certainly would say yes! Unless you have other, faster lenses of course. The Konica is well built, no wobbles and no play, it feels solid, you can focus it down to 1.2 m which is useful for tight portraits (most 2.8/135mm lenses go only to 1.5m). Focusing is quite stiff, compared to the much smoother Rokkors, and the Hexanon AR aperture ring generally is a pain (difficult to turn and very easy to lock in the "AE" position). The Konica 2.5/135mm has a lower contrast than the Rokkor 2.8/135mm [4/4], and less CAs. The Konica, stopped down to f5.6, has no visible CAs at all, which is quite remarkable.
For size, see the image below.
Stephan
_________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|