Hexanon AR 135mm lenses

[guardian]

Among three varieties of the subject lenses, f3.5, f3.2, and f2.5:

Does one of these stand out regarding overall ability to deliver the best photos for the least price?

IOW, is one of the three choices a standout as regards value??

If you were starting from scratch, owning no Hexanon AR 135mm lenses at all, and could buy only one such lens, which one would you buy?

[Excalibur]

Well I only have the f3.5 version and it's a nice lens but I have better 135s for sharpness.

[Rolf]

Have a look at www.buhla.de. I remember that I have given you this link in another thread before.

The site and the infos given there are serious.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Rolf's advice is excellent.

I have four Konica 135s, an early EE f16 chrome band 3.5, a late AE f22 3.5, a mid-production f16 EE all black 3.2 and a Hexar 3.5.

The 3.2 is the best of those, but they are all excellent and sharp with rich colours and contrast.

The least sharp are the early EE f16 chrome band one and the Hexar, but even those two are sharp lenses that should be sharp enough for most people and have good colours and contrast and CA control.

EE f16 chrome band:




Hexar:




I'm sure you'd be happy with any of the Konica 135s, but the 3.2 is the one to have if you see it at a good price.

[guardian]

[eddieitman]

Take a look at my 135 http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-135-f3-5-the-wilkinson-sword-so-sharp-it-cuts-t42799.html

[Rolf]

[guardian]

[guardian]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Keep looking, they do come along at good prices, I paid very little for mine.

Here is a cheap one in the UK, just avoid Buy It Now ones as they usually want 25-40ukp.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-Hexanon-AR-135mm-F3-5-Telephoto-Lens-with-Hard-Leather-Case-/140794424774?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item20c8006dc6#ht_500wt_1413

[NikonD]

I have the 2.5 version and it's super sharp even wide open

here are some photos made with this lens on nikon body
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EyJPAXZI_qg/T9THGG4IfLI/AAAAAAAADho/zocOQyzdoek/s1600/DSC_1541.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tWwsV0-iaE8/T9TG_31HN4I/AAAAAAAADhQ/4sC_Iyx1iQo/s1600/DSC_1524.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pf-aiEosQBo/T9THB_8QsmI/AAAAAAAADhY/ZcaosLaqR9E/s1600/DSC_1526.JPG

[estudleon]

[quote="iangreenhalgh1"........The 3.2 is the best of those..[/quote]

+1.

Do you like warmer colors? So the latest 3,5.

Rino.

[konicamera]

Comparison of Hexanon 135s (“the f/3.2 is allegedly the best”): *

There are 6 Hexanons 135mm:
135/f2.5-16: manufactured from early 1973 to 1987,
135/f3.2-16: manufactured from 1970 to late 1977,
135/f3.5-16: manufactured from 1965 to 1970,
135/f3.5-22: manufactured from early 1978 to 1987,
135/f3.5-16 Hexar: manufactured from early 1975 to the middle of 1978, and
135/f3.5-22 Preset: manufactured from 1965 to 1969.
(the production spans are approximate)

The Hexanon 135/2.5 is my favorite of all the 135s. Given its large aperture, it is best of them all in blurring the background and has a very pretty bokeh. It also has a beautiful color rendition. It is heavy, however (diam. 62mm). Beside its weight, its main drawback is its ridiculous light hood. It is recommended to get a deeper screwed-on one.

Yes, the 135/3.2 passes for the best of them all. It is an incredibly sharp lens but, for this very reason, perhaps not the best choice for portraiture. Its fundamental advantages are a beautiful color rendition and its close focusing distance, a mere 1m, which was unseen in those days (1970) for a lens of this focal distance. It has a built-in and appropriately deep light hood.

The Hexanon 135/3.5 goes back to the days of Konica SLRs with the old ‘F’ lens mount (1960-1965). In 1965, its mount was changed for the AR mount. It is a very solidly made lens, both mechanically and optically, and probably the most common, along with the later compact version, of the Hexanon 135s.

The compact 135/3.5 replaced the 135/3.2 in 1977. It has a different construction from the earlier 135/3.5. It was the basic 135mm during the period of Konica’s electronic SLRs (from 1978 on). It is a very good lens, but without any special personality in my opinion. In contrast to the first version, it has a built-in light hood and its aperture closes to f22.

The Hexar 135/3.5 is one of three "entry-level” lenses, slightly less performing than their Hexanon equivalents (the two others were the 28/3.5 and 200/4). They were introduced in early 1975 and were intended for less demanding photographers or ones with a thinner wallet. They were manufactured for only 3-4 years. The Hexar 135 is a very good lens, but it is a bit more massive and less wieldly than, for example, the 135/3.2. The three Hexars were commissioned by Konica from a third-party lens maker (Tamron according to the grape vine).

Personally, when I reach for a 135mm, I primarily use the 135/2.5 and, more rarely, the 135/3.2. I like the first for its color rendition and beautiful bokeh, and the second for its light weight for when I go trekking, which is not often, and its sharpness.

Cheers,

* (translation from Polish of a text I once posted elsewhere)

[iangreenhalgh1]

[konicamera]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'm gonna have to get mine out and weigh them, I've never noticed a difference that large.

[Attila]

I have all possible variants in all kind of mount from F to AR , I miss only earliest F mount with arm. All good they have not much difference if there is any at all. I like really big guy 135mm f2.5 and 3.2.

[estudleon]

I tried only two copirs of the 135/2,5 hexanon. Both with noticeable CA. In 2,5 lenses perhaps the SMC super takumar has the edge. The 3,2 is not excesive less luminous, has less CA, high rendering and more light. Should be my choice.