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

Konica Hexanon UC 80-200mm f4 AE Reviewed
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:48 pm    Post subject: Konica Hexanon UC 80-200mm f4 AE Reviewed Reply with quote

For it's age this lens is incredibly sharp. Contax Zeiss sharp in fact with saturated colors and flare resistance to match because of the UC Hexanon designation, a professional grade coating developed by Konica to compete with Zeiss T*, which it appears to run neck and neck with. Near prime sharp at all apertures and focal lengths with 100/8 seeming to be the sharpest point of the range. Only complaints are swirly bokeh at 200mm when close focused and a very moderate to minor amount of CA that disappears when I turn on the lens correction feature in my A7II. Also lens is very long, though not particularly heavy, and difficult to stabilize even on a tripod due to a lack of tripod collar. A great all around bright light lens and with a quality mount adapter with built in tripod collar pretty useful all around too. Color and optical performance are very hard to fault given its age. Probably the best of the Konica Hexanon tele zooms. Sharper @ 200/5.6 than 200mm f3.5 AR Hexanon prime and about as sharp as the 135/3.2 and 100/2.8 at equivalent apertures. One of the few zooms outside of the Contax Zeiss 100-300/5.6 that I feel meets the standard of a "variable prime" label. Saturated colors and flare resistance of the UC coating make this a great option if you are more concerned with optical quality than compact size. Zeiss 80-200/4 is around the same size when 1/2 zoomed, and the Hexanon weighs a little less and seems to provide a slightly better performance, particularly near the 80mm end.

Highly recommended optically and for gorgeous color, however you should not be afraid to tote around and stabilize a fairly hefty lens (relative to modern standards).

Sony A7II
Capture One No Sharpening
Lens Comp Off
SteadyShot Off
NR Off
Tripod Stabilized

200@f8@bokeh


80@f4


80@f5.6


80@f8


80@f11


80@f16


100@f4


100@f5.6


100@f8


100@f11


100@f16


135@f4


135@f5.6


135@f8


135@f11


135@f16


200@f4


200@f5.6


200@f8


200@f11


200@f16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent results.
Thank you for sharing these
T


PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice! That is a zoom to look out for. Unfortunately they seem really rare, never seen one for sale in the Netherlands.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just won an auction for a Konica batch including a Konica FS-1, an angle viewfinder, a flash, a batch of filters and caps, and the Konica UC Zoom Hexanon AR 80-200mm F4.

22€ + 10€ delivery... a steal...

Can't wait to receive the packet and try it. Smile

Fortunately for us, there are still people who don't know what they have in hands and whose ads are not focused on the right item.


Last edited by Olivier on Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

excellent fetch!

I have the Hexanon 80-200 3.5, I know I know... it's like showing up for spring training in batman pajamas I know.... however I appreciate Konica


Last edited by wildlight images on Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:11 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have one of these, don't use it much but it is a really excellent lens.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Konica Hexanon UC 80-200mm f4 AE Reviewed Reply with quote

retrooptical wrote:
For it's age this lens is incredibly sharp. Contax Zeiss sharp in fact ...
... Near prime sharp at all apertures and focal lengths ...
... Only complaints are ... a very moderate to minor amount of CA
... One of the few zooms outside of the Contax Zeiss 100-300/5.6 that I feel meets the standard of a "variable prime" label.


I do have two samples of the Konica Hexanon AR 4/80-200mm UC, yet i can't agree with you Wink
I have re-tested the Konica along with the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L and the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm, using the 24MP Sony A7.
I have not used a tripod. Instead, i've placed the camera/lens combination on a stable 20 cm wide balustrade, which is more stable than a tripd.
To minimize vibrations, I have used the electronic first curtain and the 2 s self timer.

The three 80-200mm vintage zoom lenses were tester near infinity, and at focal lengths of 80mm, 135mm and 200mm.

The differences are clearest at f=200mm, and therefore i show these results here. First a 100% crop fro the center:


At 200mm and 1:4, the Canon and the Zeiss provide a very clear and sharp central image to focus. Not so the Konica -
it remains always a bit "low contrast" and looks slightly blurry, as shown above.

Now the corners, first wide open:

The Zeiss (being roughly ten years newer than the Canon 80-200L) has an excellent detail resolution and very little CAs. This lens,
in fact, is comparable to the best 4/200mm primes from around 1980. The Canon 80-200 L has slightly less details, and a slightly better
color correction. And the Hexanon? Lots of CAs, and quite poor resolution - in other words, the typical performance of an average
80-200mm zoom of its time. Certainly a big difference to the Canon and Zeiss counterparts.

And now the same zooms at f8:

The Canon L is remarkably clear now, and certainly ahead of the Zeiss. I can't explain why, but i know from my daily experience that the
Zeiss @ f=200mm is best wide open, while the Canon L improves when stopping down and finally delivers the best images of all my vintage 80-200mm zooms.

At 80mm 1:4 the Zeiss is the sharpest lens. The Canon L is nearly as good (just a trace of CAs, while the Zeiss has none).
The Konica, again, is less sharp. Stopped down to f8, the differences nearly disappear, and all three lenses are very good - comparable
to my Minolta MD 2/85mm @ f2.8.

At 135mm 1:4 the Zeiss, again, performs very well: No CAs, and excellent corner sharpness. The Canon corners are slightly less
sharp (no CAs as well). The Hexanon UC has some CAs (though less than at f=200mm), and details are a bit weaker. Stopped down to
f8, the differences between the three lenses are minor; Zeiss still being the sharpest, followed by Canon and Konica, the latter again with
a small amount of lateral CAs.

retrooptical wrote:

Zeiss 80-200/4 is around the same size when 1/2 zoomed, and the Hexanon weighs a little less and seems to provide a slightly better performance, particularly near the 80mm end.

My Carl Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm zoom does not change length when zooming ... I hope we are talking about the same lens, are we??
EDIT There was a Carl Jeiss (Jena) 80-200mm zoom, obviously a re-branded japanese "cheapo".

One final remark: The Konica 4/80-200mm UC can be focused down to 1:2 (0.7m / 2.3ft), while the two other lenses only go down to
about 1m. It is possible that the Konica was optimized for closer distances and performs better around 1:10. We know that infinity
performance of the Tamron SP 3.5-4/70-210mm (another lens with focusing down to 0.75m) is hampered by its 1:2 focusing feature:
"The SP 70-210's only weakness is a lack of contrast in fine details at all zoom settings when photographing distant subjects. Why?
Because the correction for spherical aberration within the four element focus group was optimized for closer distances rather than for
infinity."
(cited from adaptall-2.com). Obviously the Konica 4/80-200mm UC has similar problems!

Stephan


Last edited by stevemark on Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah ... i forgot to upload the image from where the crops were taken. Here it is!



Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there must be considerable sample differences for this lens. Mine was NOS but I never liked the performance much on the NEX-7. Your samples look very good!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pontus wrote:
I think there must be considerable sample differences for this lens. Mine was NOS but I never liked the performance much on the NEX-7. Your samples look very good!


1) what do you mean by NOS (sorry, i'm not a native English ...)
2) which lens are you talking about?

Thx Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Pontus wrote:
I think there must be considerable sample differences for this lens. Mine was NOS but I never liked the performance much on the NEX-7. Your samples look very good!


1) what do you mean by NOS (sorry, i'm not a native English ...)
2) which lens are you talking about?

Thx Wink

Stephan


1) NOS = New Old Stock = old lens but unused
2) Konica Hexanon UC 80-200mm f4 AE (the first sample in this thread)


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pontus wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Pontus wrote:
I think there must be considerable sample differences for this lens. Mine was NOS but I never liked the performance much on the NEX-7. Your samples look very good!


1) what do you mean by NOS (sorry, i'm not a native English ...)
2) which lens are you talking about?

Thx Wink

Stephan


1) NOS = New Old Stock = old lens but unused
2) Konica Hexanon UC 80-200mm f4 AE (the first sample in this thread)


Thanks for this information.
I have seen large variations in image qualty on several "like new" Konica zoom lenses as well, and so did renowned test journals when testing their zooms.
Stephan

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ho wonderlens.
Thank you for your contribution.
Welome onboard ! 😀


PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great contrast and yes these colors in that lens.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:41 am    Post subject: Re: Outstanding efforts, btw Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
Which is better over all, the UC or the 3.5 Hexanon? No doubt one is easier to handle. I have the 3.5 and have considered the UC version, but my fotoga AR adapter's milling was apparently off and seems to limit me from full infinity ...so when I take a distance shot such as the test shots just above.... I'm certain I was not critically focused at infinity. Closer in subjects, appear as an equal to the UC with me although I'd say both have the same CA issues. I don't see an advantage having the UC in contrast or color and that's exactly what I'd expect to have. And I can't help stop thinking the image of the bridge, has a light leak maybe, adapter used perhaps..? or a slightly hazy element inside.... it just has that feel to it, maybe I'm wrong?


I agree, unless it was a very hazy day, then there's something wrong with that lens.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Outstanding efforts, btw Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
Which is better over all, the UC or the 3.5 Hexanon?


I have not yet done a systematic comparison, mainly because my three AR 3.5/80-200mm do not perform identically, and neither do the and my two AR 4/80-200mm UC ... but i could compare the the best AR 3.5/80-200mm and the best AR 4/80-200mm UC, of course. Probably the UC is better at closer distances.

Wonder Lens wrote:
I have the 3.5 and have considered the UC version, but my fotoga AR adapter's milling was apparently off and seems to limit me from full infinity ...

Not necessarily. My Hexanons more often have problems with "infinity" than my Minolta MC/MDs. Therefore is prefer the "prost" adapters, at least for primes. They usually are a bit shorter than officially required. Therefore they allow for correct focusing even if the lens itself doesn't really go to "infinity". For zooms this isn't ideal, of course.

Stephan