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 vs Minolta rokkor 200mm f3.5 (questions)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:43 pm    Post subject: Konica hexanon vs Minolta rokkor 200mm f3.5 (questions) Reply with quote
My lba has pointed me at 200mm.

First about my use/what I emphasize:
In most cases I'll shot wide open or only 1-1.5 stop down, so number of aperture blades is not (should not) be very important. Also iq after f8 is not important.
I'll like this to have a nice (flat looking), creamy bokeh without swirling, no 3d pop out in the oof parts, and without light getting blown up to large circles.
Fair/good flare resistance would be nice.
I'll not like a lens that has some "easy to fix pp" issues, I prefer not to pp and use ooc jpegs or at least ooc jpegs should not come with visible know faults.
Always shooting hand held.
For now it will be used on aps-c.

For my nostalgia I'm looking at Konica and Minolta (200mm f3.5) also I'm having a jupiter-21m on the list as an outsider/dark horse.
Have anybody here tested the Konica and Minolta and compared them?
I guess that in pure technical iq both the Konica and Minolta will be better than the Jupiter, or maybe not ....?
I know that some konicas have coatings that decay to a yellowish surface, does the 200mm's also suffer from this?
I guess that slower f4 Konicas and Minoltas does not match their faster siblings? And I know that the rokkor f2 is to expensive.

You do not have to answer all my questions to reply, any partial help is also very much appreciated as well as other comments.

ps. I've another setup (autofocus, that is) for the "more serious" stuff, so this is not going to be my only lens to get "reach".


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Konica hexanon vs Minolta rokkor 200mm f3.5 (questions) Reply with quote
tgm wrote:

You do not have to answer all my questions to reply, any partial help is also very much appreciated as well as other comments.

I can’t say anything authoritative about the Rokkors, as my experience with them is limited. Re: “which is better”, the little experience I’ve had with Rokkors gave me the impression that they are very similar to the Hexanons in terms of color reproduction and character. I suggest you will find good lenses faster by trying many models out for yourself, because with sample variation, you might end up with a better Heaxnon one time, and a much better Rokkor some other time.

A few comments about the Konica Hexanons 200mm lenses:

Of all the 200mm lenses Konica made, the 200/3.5 is, indeed the best. Made from 1965 to 1977, it has its own personality, it is very sharp and renders colors beautifully. Then comes the 200/4 (ca. 1978-1981), which is a very competent lens, but is not as sharp as the f3.5 and has none of the earlier model’s character. There is also the Hexar 200/4 (ca. 1975-1977), an entry level lens whose performance is respectable but nothing to write home about IMO.

I am not aware of coatings turning yellow with time. This phenomenon is usually due to rare earths used in the making of some standard lenses. The only Hexanon I have repeatedly seen this problem being mentioned with is the 57/1.2. I have never come across it in connection with the 200/3.5.

The Hexanon AR 200/3.5 exists in 4 versions: High-gloss finish with an aluminum ring (1965-1967); Flat black finish with an aluminum ring (1967-1970); Flat black finish with an aluminum ring and a rubber focusing ring (1970-1972); All-black (no aluminum ring) with a rubber focusing ring. In contrast to most other Hexanon lenses, this one doesn’t exist in the flat-finish/ all-black/all metal version. The last version has the best coatings. Pay no attention to “EE’ or “AE” on the aperture ring as this does not indicate the lens’ specific version and is of absolutely no technical consequence.

The 200/3.5 also exists in preset version (1965-1969) and might just be the most desirable for attractive bokeh, as it has 12 aperture blades, instead of 6, like the lenses mentioned above. It also has different coatings than the first version of the Hexanon AR 200/3.5 mentioned above. It comes up for sale very rarely, however.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
About qualities of Rokkor you can read here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rokkor-qf-200-3-5-t30761.html
and here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/rokkor-200mm-f3-5-t58903,start,15.html

For me fringing was a little to dominant. But it depends on taste and post-processing those days.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the last version of the Hexanon, and while it's a sharp lens, it's also one of my worst for CA.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Jupiter is a very good lens indeed , quiet sharp. I am not sure that you will get better pictures with the other ones.
The Jupiter is unfortunately very heavy and its focusing is a bit too long. Quality but not very usable. After a try I decided not to keep it.

I have a Rokkor MD 200 f4. Good from f4 and very usable . It is light and compact and focusing is easy. Unless you really need 3.5 , you could also consider it.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both the Rokkor and the Hexanon 200/3.5. Both have CA wide open, any 200mm you use from that time period will. I like the rendering of both, the Rokkor gives the classic "Minolta Colors" which tend to be a bit cooler, while the Hexanon seems to me to produce warmer images. The Hexanon is sharper wide open, one stop down and there is little difference. I think both are going to be six blades, I can't remember, but that's always a safe bet with both brands.

They're both very nice lenses and the 200mm Hexanon has a great reputation and is one of the more affordable Hexanons out there. Both are big heavy things, later 200mm designs like the Hexanon 200/4 are smaller and lighter (though not as sharp).

Other lenses I would recommend in that range would be the Asanuma (Tokina) 3.5 and the Vivitar Series 1 200 F3 (Komine).


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the replies, all very kind and helpful.

@konicamera
Good useful list of the different versions, it is the last version I'm considering.
A 12 blade preset version would so nice, but I trust you very rare, I do not hope one of these shows up for sale, I might be tempted to pay far to much for it Smile

@pavko
Just pushing me a bit more towards the hexanon Smile

@lenny
Ouch, now a step towards the rokkor Smile

@memetph
I'll keep the jupiter on my wish list for later, could be just what I would like to use.
I've placed bid on a rokkor f4, but I expect somebody will be willing to pay more though.

@kenetik
I always liked "minolta colors", but having used the ar 28mm f1.8 and ar 40mm f1.8 for just a short time on digital seems to give me more depth in the colors than the rokkor and newer minolta lenses.

Other/more input is very welcome, else I'll get back when I have something to add, thanks again.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
I have a Rokkor MD 200 f4. Good from f4 and very usable . It is light and compact and focusing is easy. Unless you really need 3.5 , you could also consider it.


Have you posted pictures from it? I bought a Rokkor 4/200 recently, but won't have it for a while yet. I got it for its wide open performance - not having to worry about hexagonal or octagonal highlights. I figured I'd probably only be using it wide open. I will be curious how well it does in comparison to my Komura 3.5/200 at f/4. The advantage with the Komura is a round iris and its color and bokeh.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I looked at both of these lenses in my collection and here is a little more technical info... I have a middle version of the Konica and the Rokkor I have is from 1966. Later 200mm MC Rokkors vary.

Both have 6 blades. The Konica is a bit taller, wider and heavier than the Minolta. The Konica goes from f3.5 to 16 with half clicks between every stop. The Minolta goes from f3.5 to 22 with half stops after f5.6. So the Konica can be used at f4, while the Minolta jumps directly from 3.5 to 5.6.

Konica - 5 elements/4 groups
Minolta - 6 elements/4 groups (Qf)

Konica has 67mm filter size, Minolta 62.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own the Rokkor and it is sturdy beast to be sure. I'm yet to try it out properly yet though.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are some opinions: http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/176-minolta-200mm-f4

Others here: http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive


PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My version is the MD . It is the last one , four hundred something grams.
This is a comparison of its bokeh at f4 with the Takumar 200 3.5 at f4
Rokkor

Takumar


The Rokkor has to be slightly corrected for its CA


PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hexanon AR 200mm f3.5 AE
Bokeh and sharpness

@f3.5

#1


@f5.6

#2


PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta 200 f4 can be bought for very little money on ebay (30-50£ from shops, less on auction). Plenty available

The 2.8 is more expensive though and heavier (700g) but has a mfd of 1.8 m.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is a lot of 200mm discussion in this topic: http://forum.mflenses.com/mamiya-sekor-200-3-5-sharpest-200mm-is-it-t78665.html

I would go for a Hexanon because it is a Sonnar. There is a test in the topic all mayor lens brands are very good but Olympus OM and Nikkor beat the bunch.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1