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

testing my lenses - part 109 - Konica Hexanon 28mm/3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: testing my lenses - part 109 - Konica Hexanon 28mm/3.5 Reply with quote

AE version, f22, 5 elements in 5 groups











Last edited by WolverineX on Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That lens does produce nice images.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful images congrats!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
That lens does produce nice images.


yes, although version before this one, last one with 7 lenses in 7 groups is supposed to be better


PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WolverineX wrote:
woodrim wrote:
That lens does produce nice images.


yes, although version before this one, last one with 7 lenses in 7 groups is supposed to be better



Possibly. But would we be able to discern the difference? Your set is very impressive and well done. Just look at those photos!

You benefited from likely better coatings, lighter weight lens, newer lens with less wear and tear, less chance for damage over years and for dust/haze.

With seven elements would your photos have been that much better? Should we allow the perfect to become enemy of the excellent?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
WolverineX wrote:
woodrim wrote:
That lens does produce nice images.


yes, although version before this one, last one with 7 lenses in 7 groups is supposed to be better



Possibly. But would we be able to discern the difference? Your set is very impressive and well done. Just look at those photos!

You benefited from likely better coatings, lighter weight lens, newer lens with less wear and tear, less chance for damage over years and for dust/haze.

With seven elements would your photos have been that much better? Should we allow the perfect to become enemy of the excellent?


I can't tell the difference, but my 7 element version is pretty good, I was amazed at the picture that came out of that lens (aka the color/smoothness). If I have some time this afternoon i'll take a shot with my NEX5 and post it up.

Bought it because I realized it was the 7 element version instead of the later 5 elements.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, wonderful rendering and colours! Lovely shots and a great example of what can be achieved with this lens.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have this 5 element AE, the 7 element EE and the Hexar 5 element. They are all excellent but the 7 element is better than the other two, it is much better built too being all metal, so I prefer it, but if you prefer a smaller, lighter lens and don't mind some plastic, the 5 element version may appeal more.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have this 5 element AE, the 7 element EE and the Hexar 5 element. They are all excellent but the 7 element is better than the other two, it is much better built too being all metal, so I prefer it, but if you prefer a smaller, lighter lens and don't mind some plastic, the 5 element version may appeal more.


i know that the last 7-7 version is best one, i bought this one in a bundle with 200mm/3.5 and 52mm/1.8 because it was affordable. idea was to try it, test it and re-sell it together with 52mm lens , but as it turns out this one is a keeper and 52mm isn't bad either.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All Hexanons are good, the 3.5/200 is wonderful, best 200mm lens I've tried, congrats on that one.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here's the 7 element version wide open, this have been through PP because i forgot to change my setting to JPEG, but more ore less, you get the idea. It's not bad at all (well the picture is bad, i'm a horrible photographer, but the lens is good Smile)


DSC07906-Edit-001 by quickrabit, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats not a bad pic... don't get down on yourself now Wink I have seen worse from people who call themselves pro's

Hey, just wondering off hand, how do I tell the difference between the 5 and the 7 element version? and then how do I tell the difference between the different 7 element versions to know if It was the "last" of the & elements.

Just wondering.

Great lens, I need to get one to compare to my 28 1.8 Hexanon.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jimithing616 wrote:
Thats not a bad pic... don't get down on yourself now Wink I have seen worse from people who call themselves pro's

Hey, just wondering off hand, how do I tell the difference between the 5 and the 7 element version? and then how do I tell the difference between the different 7 element versions to know if It was the "last" of the & elements.

Just wondering.

Great lens, I need to get one to compare to my 28 1.8 Hexanon.


http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e28_35.html

basically, if it's stop down to f22, the only 7 element version is the chrome base, other wise it's a 5 element, almost all if not all the ones that stop down to 16 is 7 element.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clockwork247 wrote:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e28_35.html

basically, if it's stop down to f22, the only 7 element version is the chrome base, other wise it's a 5 element, almost all if not all the ones that stop down to 16 is 7 element.


you can't generalize like that, mine is 5 element and it has f16.

looking at the photos of lenses at buhla.de 5 element variants are AE and have rubber focus ring with checkered inlay that has 3 rows of squares. if it has 5 rows it's last 7 element version


PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WolverineX is right, I'm missing that one, I think that might be the only one that's f/16 with 5 element.

Best is to check on that site, he listed almost every version of the lens.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine is the Konica Hexanon AR, f3.5 - f16 Looked like 5 elements I think UPDATE same as Ians' in this thread so ?7 elements - 3 in the front unit and two behind. I love the sharpness and smooth bokeh, found the contrast tending to dull (but I did have to clean off fungus) and colours/saturation required a boost. Lumix G1 from RAW.







PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last pic is so beauty, really,

Renato


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WolverineX wrote:
woodrim wrote:
That lens does produce nice images.


yes, although version before this one, last one with 7 lenses in 7 groups is supposed to be better


Yes, the 7/7 Hexanon lens is better than the 5/5. But if your lens' smallest aperture is f16, you have the 7/7 model. There is only one 28mm Hexanon with 5/5 construction and its smallest aperture is f22. It is the compact version introduced in late 1976. The only way you could have a Konica 28/3.5 lens with 5/5 construction and a smallest aperture of f16 is if it was the Hexar (made from early 1975 to late 1977).
Very nice photos BTW. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jimithing616 wrote:
Thats not a bad pic... don't get down on yourself now Wink I have seen worse from people who call themselves pro's

Hey, just wondering off hand, how do I tell the difference between the 5 and the 7 element version? and then how do I tell the difference between the different 7 element versions to know if It was the "last" of the & elements.

Just wondering.

Great lens, I need to get one to compare to my 28 1.8 Hexanon.


Hexanon are nice lenses . I find nevertheless their aperture ring rough.
May I ask you question ?
How your Rokkors 50/1.4 compare to your Pentax M 50/1.4 ?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jimithing616 wrote:
Hey, just wondering off hand, how do I tell the difference between the 5 and the 7 element version? and then how do I tell the difference between the different 7 element versions to know if It was the "last" of the & elements.

There is much confusion about Hexanon 28/3.5 lenses. Here is a list of them all:

The 7/7 model comes in 4 versions:
High-gloss black finish with aluminum ring (1965-1967)
Satin black finish with aluminum ring (1967-1970)
Satin black finish, entirely black (1970-late 1973)
Satin black finish, entirely black, rubber covered focusing ring (early 1973-late 1977).

The smallest aperture of all 7/7 versions is f16. They are, optically speaking, the same lens. They differ only in appearance, barrel style, and coatings. The first three versions have 'EE' on the aperture ring, while the last version has 'AE' on the aperture ring (this bit of trivia for those who give meaning to this detail).

The 5/5 model comes in only one version:
Satin black finish, compact version, rubber covered focusing ring (early 1978-mid 1987). It's smallest aperture is f22 and it also has 'AE' o the aperture ring.

There is also the Hexar, often mistaken for a Hexanon. It can easily be recognized from a distance because of its relatively recessed front element and its thin focusing ring. It has a 5/5 construction, a smallest aperture of f16 and was made from early 1975 to early 1978. The Hexar also has 'AE' on the aperture ring.

All of the above are automatic aperture lenses. There is also a quite rare Hexanon 28/3.5 preset lens with a smallest aperture of f22 (15 aperture blades!) and a 58mm filter thread. It has a 7/6 construction and was made from 1965 to about 1969.

That's 7 in all. If there are any others, in 35 years of shooting with Hexanon lenses, I have never heard of one or seen one in Konica literature.

PS:
Please note that whether a Hexanon lens has EE or AR on its aperture ring has NOTHING to do with that lens' version. The letters EE or AR on that lens MAY correspond to a lens variation in the case of one particular lens, but for the great majority it DOESN'T and is just a coincidence. More here: https://sites.google.com/site/tks0en/6-technical-questions/-automatic-exposure-setting


Last edited by konicamera on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:15 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RSalles wrote:
Last pic is so beauty, really,

Renato


Thank you Renato, i have taken that view with a number of lenses, different lighting, see what seems to work..

My lens is all black, all metal. Serial number of my lens is 7178xxxx does that indicate 1971 as year of origin?

One more (cropped and resized):



PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At f5.6 - f8 this lens is tack sharp, with no sign of fringing or CA, and even though the lighting was flat, the 3D look of the stone cat is great.



PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:


Yes, the 7/7 Hexanon lens is better than the 5/5. But if your lens' smallest aperture is f16, you have the 7/7 model. There is only one 28mm Hexanon with 5/5 construction and its smallest aperture is f22.


Thanks, konicamera, for reaffirming that. What you stated here (f16 is a "tell" for 7/7) is my current understanding of this lens. But some of the earlier statements on this thread were casting doubt until you posted.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:55 pm    Post subject: Re: testing my lenses - part 109 - Konica Hexanon 28mm/3.5 Reply with quote

WolverineX wrote:
AE version, f22, 5 elements in 5 groups











Hi WolverineX,
I loved your picture for the sharpness, color and all. So, I moved from Sony Nex to bought an OMD EM10 for easy to learned form you. But today i tried on many for the Konica Hexanon 85 1.8 and even 28 3.5 but the picture look like not so good then you, although I set the aperture f5.6 for Konica Hexanon AE 28 f3.5 lens and f11 for the 85 1.8.
So can you give me a tip to adjust the camera to reach the great shot like yours. Because I also newbie on OMD.

Thank you so much.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:04 pm    Post subject: Re: testing my lenses - part 109 - Konica Hexanon 28mm/3.5 Reply with quote

triviet wrote:

Hi WolverineX,
I loved your picture for the sharpness, color and all. So, I moved from Sony Nex to bought an OMD EM10 for easy to learned form you. But today i tried on many for the Konica Hexanon 85 1.8 and even 28 3.5 but the picture look like not so good then you, although I set the aperture f5.6 for Konica Hexanon AE 28 f3.5 lens and f11 for the 85 1.8.
So can you give me a tip to adjust the camera to reach the great shot like yours. Because I also newbie on OMD.

Thank you so much.


in what way your photos are not good?