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 35mm 2.8 2 Different Versions
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:31 am    Post subject: Konica 35mm 2.8 2 Different Versions Reply with quote
I never realized this before but there seems to be 2 different versions of the Konica 35mm 2.8, you can see there is a early, 6 element version and a late, 5 element version here on Buhla:

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e35_28.html

I personally have the early, 6 element version and I've never come across the the 5 element version one before and I've never seen any posts about it anywhere, does anyone have any knowledge on the 5 element one, how do they stack up against each other?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Konica 35mm 2.8 2 Different Versions Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
I never realized this before but there seems to be 2 different versions of the Konica 35mm 2.8, you can see there is a early, 6 element version and a late, 5 element version here on Buhla:

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e35_28.html

I personally have the early, 6 element version and I've never come across the the 5 element version one before and I've never seen any posts about it anywhere, does anyone have any knowledge on the 5 element one, how do they stack up against each other?


The late Hexanon 35/2.8 was made from very late 1980 until, perhaps, the end of 1982, a very short production span. It is very uncommon. It was made for Konica by Tokina and looks very much like the Tokina RMC 35/2.8, also a rare bird. It is very compact, the size of the 40/1.8 pancake, perhaps 1-2mm taller. I have never made any direct comparisons with the older model but I should think that, just like with the 28/3.5s, the earlier 7-element versions are usually better performers in terms of sharpness and contrast, but that the later 5-element version has somewhat better coatings. The last 7-element lenses were made in late 1980 and the difference in coatings is probably barely noticeable between a 7-element lens of this vintage and the new 5-element one. The difference is going to be much greater if you compare it to a 7-element lens from the early 70s, like the all metal all-black version, and especially with either aluminum ring-version, which are from the late 60s. I will try to upload a photo of the 35/2.8 compact version when I find it in my Hexanon photo jungle.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The newer 35/2.8 has sharp corners even wide open. The older one is still a very good lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padam wrote:
The newer 35/2.8 has sharp corners even wide open. The older one is still a very good lens.


On which captor ?
Thanks


PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You are a legend Cool thanks konicamera, I keep forgetting that konika stopped producing their own lenses, I had a couple of copies of the 40mm cause I kept thinking I had a bad one but finally came to the conclusion it wasn't as great as alot of people made it out to be.

If you have any shots taken with the 5 element 35mm I would like to see them


PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
You are a legend Cool thanks konicamera, I keep forgetting that konika stopped producing their own lenses, I had a couple of copies of the 40mm cause I kept thinking I had a bad one but finally came to the conclusion it wasn't as great as alot of people made it out to be.

If you have any shots taken with the 5 element 35mm I would like to see them


Thanks for the kind words.

This may be somewhat OT, but as you mention it: Actually, common wisdom has it that Konica subcontracted to Tokina the manufacturing of lenses it had designed itself. Starting about 1979, Tokina made a larger and lager number of lenses for Konica in this fashion. There was over a dozen of them ans it is likely, although not absolutely certain, that most of them were in fact Konica designs, if only because they were made exclusively for Konica. Only three of them, all zooms, were also marketed as Tokina lenses and were available in the day’s usual crop of mounts. Most of them are not quite as performing as the best Hexanons from the first half of the 70s, but they are excellent lenses, and this includes the 40/1.8.
I take all of today’s frequently encountered view about the mediocrity of the 40/1.8 pancake with a chunk of salt. The reputation of this lens was made in the late 1970s, in the days of film, and IMO this reputation is entirely deserved. Shoot it with film, especially B&W, and see what this lens is capable of. Unless you have a lemon – always a possibility with a 35-year-old lens – I think you are going to be very pleased.
In the digital age, many people purchase this lens on the face of this reputation and are disappointed by its performance. They then deduce that the lens’ reputation is due to a misunderstanding or, worse, a mystification. Yet there is no reason to expect a lens to perform the same way as it once did on film on the myriad of sensors available today. I have not experimented in any worthwhile sense with any lens on a digital medium, so I can’t tell you on which sensor it works better or on which worse. But I have become aware of the optical problems many vintage lenses cause on digital sensors due to reflections of extraneous light within the mirror chamber (a term I use to call the space between a lens and the sensor in a camera, whether it has a mirror or not), and the use of baffles to reduce it. The 40/1.8 pancake seems to benefit greatly from the use of baffles, especially on 4/3sensors from what I’ve seen. My friend Christophe Esperado has a number of photos taken wide open with this lens, with and without the baffle, and you can see the difference in terms of sharpness and contrast at http://www.street-photo.fr/fr/materiel/27/35 You can also see a discussion of the issue in English at http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/threads/57126-Legacy-lens-baffle-size Incidentally, I am very curious about how the 40/1.8 will perform on the Sony FF mirrorless cameras.

Back to the 35/2.8 compact: I don’t have any photos taken with that lens, but I will try to find it and take some. When I do I will add them here.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
C. Esperado who wrote this article about the construction of baffle for Hexanon lenses, uses currently those lenses with an A7.
He reported good results with his 40mm on the A7.
About the 35 2.8 , I can say that the old version is far from perfect in the extreme corners with an A7. It gives nevertheless nice results.
That the reason why I asked Padam which sensor he uses when he said that the new version is better in the corners.
Let's wait for his answer.
A propos Hexanon , I just bought a 135 3.2 . My first impression is very positive.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luckily in some ways I use a MFT cam so corners from 35mm lenses are not too much of a problem but the info from the links given have inadvertently given me a lot to consider when using older film lenses on a digital body.

the construction of the baffles from the GF1 body are quite different from the cam I have at the moment and I can visibly see the difference with the lenses I have kept and the amount of internal reflection I can expect from them.

there's always the possibility I have had 3 different lemons with the 40mm Konica but due to its footprint I would be willing to see if it performs better with my current body and maybe an additional baffle to compensate for the glow wide open.

thanks again for the input and the links;)


PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
luckily in some ways I use a MFT cam so corners from 35mm lenses are not too much of a problem but the info from the links given have inadvertently given me a lot to consider when using older film lenses on a digital body.

the construction of the baffles from the GF1 body are quite different from the cam I have at the moment and I can visibly see the difference with the lenses I have kept and the amount of internal reflection I can expect from them.

there's always the possibility I have had 3 different lemons with the 40mm Konica but due to its footprint I would be willing to see if it performs better with my current body and maybe an additional baffle to compensate for the glow wide open.

thanks again for the input and the links;)


here is someone test 35/2.8(F16) VS 35/2.8 (F22)
http://www.konicafans.info/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1442&extra=page%3D1

as you can see that newer 35/2.8(F22) has sharp corners even wide open


PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
C. Esperado who wrote this article about the construction of baffle for Hexanon lenses, uses currently those lenses with an A7.
He reported good results with his 40mm on the A7.
About the 35 2.8 , I can say that the old version is far from perfect in the extreme corners with an A7. It gives nevertheless nice results.
That the reason why I asked Padam which sensor he uses when he said that the new version is better in the corners.
Let's wait for his answer.
A propos Hexanon , I just bought a 135 3.2 . My first impression is very positive.


The Hexanon 40/1.8 AR on the A7 is usable from f2.8,good at f4 and very good from f5.6.At f1.8 it is sharp on most of the image but it's obscured by more than average weiling and CA.

I got full metal 35/2.8 EE and AE with rubberized grip,both f16.The mentioned corner softness is pronounced at close distances,but not obtrusive at medium range and infinity.

Hexanon 135/3.2 is one of my favourite 135mm lenses,as well as the 135/2.5.Enjoy! Very Happy


Hexanon 35/2.8 AE at f2.8+A7
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/U951I1405624946.SEQ.1.jpg
and at f8
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/U951I1398095770.SEQ.0.jpg

Hexanon 135/3.2+A7 at f3.2
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/U951I1396203310.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/U951I1396203310.SEQ.1.jpg
Hexanon 135/2.5 +A7 at f2.5
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1417024492.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1417024701.SEQ.0.jpg


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 5 elements 35s of the 70's or 80's were made to reduced costs. Minolta, Konica, etc were examples of that.

The price to py was the lost of IQ (borders sharpness, microcontrast, more CA, more distortion, etc).

The Hexanon 28/3,5 was one of those 5 elements lenses with serious differences with the 7 elements ones.

In those circumstances don't sound logic to me that the 5 elements 35 mm hexanons stay out of the general rule.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Probably you are right , it was for cost purpose. Nevertheless, it looks that the design of retrofocus WA made some progress.
The Rokkor MD 28 3.5 is by far better in the corners than the MC SG. it seems to be same for that Hexanon 35 2.8.
With APS-C sensors , you could not see it.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well Memetph, you can be right here.

Only the images can tell us the reality.

Who has both lenses can (if want to) share pics taken with those lenses.

And yes, the 3,5/28 minolta 5 elements should be better than the 7 elements in contrast and borders, but has more CA and less sharpness at the center.

If we see

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/148-minolta-28mm-f35

and

http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/330-nex-5n-und-28mm-objektive

the question turn to a relative one.

Horacio.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Well Memetph, you can be right here.

Only the images can tell us the reality.

Who has both lenses can (if want to) share pics taken with those lenses.

And yes, the 3,5/28 minolta 5 elements should be better than the 7 elements in contrast and borders, but has more CA and less sharpness at the center.

If we see

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/148-minolta-28mm-f35

and

http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/330-nex-5n-und-28mm-objektive

the question turn to a relative one.

Horacio.


Well Horacio ,
I know very well this site and speak fluent german and I don't read exactly what you say.
But I have both versions of the 28 3.5 (7 and 5 elements) and I tested them on A7 not on Nex . You cannot see the corners on a Nex.
I just write what I saw. I belive my eyes.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Memetph, I believe in your opinion, of course that I do that.

But as you have both lenses, if you share images taken with them, the question should be very instructive.

My best regards.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Horacio,
I ran many tests from long and short distances in order to find a good 28mm for landscapes.
I can't put a link because I am with my Ipad but you can search " 28mm f3.5 on a Sony A7" on this site . It is an example .
It is always difficult to generalize especially with old lenses . Perhaps I had some lemons. I find anyway the performance of my MD 28 3.5 quite good on a A7 . The Pentax K is a superb lens.

Last edited by memetph on Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, memetph.

I shall search your images.

And wellcome the date of the Pentax K. Almost all here is new to me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1