Konica Hexanon

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

Are all Konica Hexanon prime lenses top notch or are there any to avoid? Which ones really stand out from the crowd for quality?

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877

The deal with Konica is pretty much the same as with Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Olympus. Frankly, I am not aware of any unquestionably bad prime from any of these companies. However, some people (notably buhla) throw words like "sharpest ever built by anyone" regarding budget lenses like Hexanon 40/1.8 and 50/1.7 and this is just fanboy speak. IMHO as long as you use common sense, it's hard to go wrong with any Hexanon.

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

In my opinion the best ones are:

15/2.8 UC Fish-eye
21/2.8
28/1.8 UC
57/1.2

Almost all Hexanon AR lenses are very good but the above four stand out in my opinion.

rbelyell · Expire: 2014-01-31

edgar ive had most of them and i thought the two best were the 57/1.4 and the 24/2.8. next on and still very good were the 28/3.5 and the 40/1.8, followed by pretty much any of the 50s. many love the 85, but i didnt like my copy, especially for the money as its pretty expensive. i much preferred the 100/2.8. for about the same price as the konica 85 you could get the much better pancolar in m42.

the only problem with AR lenses is i think you cant use them on any digicams with mirrors--the register distance i believe only works on mirrorless digicams.
tony

Bille · Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

They are all very good, there isn't a weak one in the whole line-up imho.

The lesser ones are the later ones with plastic barrels, but even those are very good.

1.8/40, 1.8/50, later 5 element 3.5/28, and the three Hexars - 3.5/28, 3.5/135 and 4/200 are the lesser ones, I have them all and am selling them all as I most of the other Hexanons and don't need them.

Personal favourites are the 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28 7 element version, 2.8/35 early F mount, 1.7/50 (it is as sharp as buhla says), 1.4/50, 1.4/57, 3.2/135 and 3.5/200.

Don't overlook the Konica zooms either, they are all very good too, the UC 45-100 and UC 80-200 are must haves. The last version of the 35-70 with plastic barrel is the only one I've had that was disappointing, and it's still very good, just lacks that biting sharpness of the Konica primes.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/konica/

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877

clockwork247 · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 79

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

The Hexanon 135/3.5 is ok but it isn't as good as the 135/2.5 or the 135/3.2

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The Hexanon 3.5/135 is usually better than okay, I have had four of them and they do vary, depending on age. The oldest one I have is an early AR mount with chrome band, this lens is razor sharp, the least good is the late one, but it's still very good.

The 3.2/135 is better, but not by all that much and sometimes I prefer to use the old 3.5, they render differently.

One good thing about Konica lenses - there doesn't seem to be as much copy variation as you tend to find with some other makers, for instance, the copy of the Canon FD 3.5/135 I had was not comparable to the Konica 135s, softer and with CA, but I suspect my copy of the Canon was a bit of a dog.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

I disliked the often recommended 40/1.8
My copy was rather soft wide open, it had annoying CAs and I disliked the colors
Somewhat worse than all the ~50-60mm and 28mm and 35mm Konicas I tried at every aperture.

All 50-60mm Konicas I tried are decent - comparable with their Zeiss, Rollei, Minolta, Nikon... counterparts - you can't go wrong with them imo.

clockwork247 · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 79

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Ok so you say there are better lenses but the Hexanon 40mm f1.8 is still up amongst the "close 2nd" best and wont disappoint :-

Hexanon 40mm f1.8 on film

rbelyell · Expire: 2014-01-31

interesting, as now that i think about it, i liked the 40 much much better on film than on digital.
tony

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

Thanks everyone for all your replies, very informative!

Since getting the MF bug 3 years ago I've accumulated a lot of lenses, nearly 100 at last count; none of them particularly valuable. But 100 lenses is crazy, with so many how often do I get to use them all? Not often. So now that I know what I like and what are good I am only investing in quality glass as and when I can afford it. For my purposes Konica Hexanon seems to be a good compromise. I already have the AR 3.5/28 and AR 1.8/50 with the AR 1.8/40 and AR 3.5/135 in transit. The 28mm hasn't been off my NEX since I got it. I think I've fallen in love with Konica Hexanon lenses! Embarassed

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

hoanpham · Expire: 2015-01-18

Yet another competitor for Hexagon AR...

hm, can't see anything wrong about 100+ lenses. You are completely normal.