Hanimex 135mm f3.5 tele-auto silver band

[ManualFocus-G]

I've seen these flying about on ebay for a while, so was intruiged to find out who made it and what sort of lens it is.

Well...before I bought it I had no idea it was a tele-auto. Anyway, it's obviously an automatic aperture lens in M42 mount. It looked familiar. In fact I believe it is the same lens as the tele-auto Soligor 135/3.5. Specs are the same, and dispite looking very different from the Soligor lens, it's clearly the same, Tokina made lens.

Soligor on the left, Hanimex on the right:



From the front:



From the rear:



I've only conducted very brief indoors testing, but the Hanimex looks very sharp, even wide open. The Soligor has a little less contrast and a bit more purple fringing. The Hanimex looks to have a stronger front coating.

Hanimex @ f3.5



Soligor @ f3.5



Hanimex 100% crop



Soligor 100% crop



Hanimex @ f5.6



Soligor @ f5.6



Hanimex 100% crop



Soligor 100% crop



Not a ground breaking test, but interesting how two lenses, seemingly the same, can perform a bit different due to coating changes etc.

[SXR_Mark]

[ManualFocus-G]

Hi Mark

I suspect you are right about the coating with regards purple fringing, although it will make a difference to contrast. The lenses have exactly the same minimum focusing distance, same mount, aperture blades etc. so I wonder what else could cause the CA? I guess it *could* be a slightly different optical formula, but why would Tokina change it for one brand? Seems odd. Maybe I used a slightly different focus point perhaps? Dust in the lens? Very slightly mis-aligned element? I'd be interested to know

As for the common myth about there being no bad 135mm lenses...hmm...I've owned a terrible Photax Paragon 135/2.8 and an almost as dreadful Carenar 135/2.8 The Photax was so soft it was actually useful as an effects portrait lens

[walter g]

Graham, Thank You. I've seen that style Hanimex on the Bay and was wondering how they perform.

[Fujinonuser]

I own the Hanimex 3.5 / 135mm lens myself (SN H675814) and I can confirm that it is sharp with high contrast and very good definition of primary colors. Try to shoot a light bulb with it -- you will not notice much flare. What is it, then, that accounts for the difference to the Soligor lens? I presume both lenses originate from different lines of production and production philosophy. The Hanimex was manufactured in 1966-1967 as can be deduced from the SN. It was also sold as an accessory lens to the Chinon cameras built from 1966 on and sold as Hanimex cameras. Tokina lenses of that period were similar with early Nikon and Canon lenses (see another thread where the 3.8 / 21mm Hanimex is compared to the Nikon lens). The Soligor lens barrel shares characteristics with lenses built around 1973-1974. I have tried Hanimex lenses from that period which share the same optical characteristics. Differences in the glass formula or just less time to allow the glass to cool off? We'll never know. There were 135mm lenses from around 1974 with a very similar barrel though shorter, namely the Fujinon 3.5 / 135mm lens, that is extremely sharp already at 3.5 and may outperform the 1966 Hanimex.

[Lloydy]

[ManualFocus-G]

Have you got a photo of the Paragon?

[martyn_bannister]

I have an auto Miranda which looks very similar to the Soligor on the left, but without the ninja blades. It is a 135/3.5 but only has 6 blades.

[martinsmith99]

Of course, it could be down to individual samples.

Anyway, great results from the Hanimex wide open and I do like the subject choice. But try and get at least an Apotar lens instead of the Agnar.

[luisalegria]

I have a different version of the Soligor T4 that is much more similar to your Hanimex -

http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-tokina-135-3-5-t4-the-last-of-a-kind-t10182,highlight,%2Bsoligor+%2B135.html

No question its a Tokina.

There is more than one version of some of the Soligor T4's. There are three of the 200/3.5 for instance, and that one certainly used different optical layouts.

Your Soligor is not a T4, are you identifying it as a Tokina based on the serial number ?

[Lloydy]

Auto Super Paragon 135 2.8 (55mm dia filter ring and M42 mount ) Probably a Cimko lens, from what little information can be found.

[ManualFocus-G]

[ManualFocus-G]

[luisalegria]

I'm quite certain that your Hanimex is a Tokina, but I'm not so sure about your Soligor.

[Kathmandu]

Graham,

Your Hanimex and my Vemar look identical-I have seen Soligors and Lentars in the same flavor.

Heres mine:




And sample image





I don't know who makes them-they are not bad at all.


Cheers

[casualcollector]

[Pancolart]

[ramiller500]

In the late 1960's, Mamiya's early 135mm/2.8 M42 lens was also very much like the Hanimex version of that time. Both were made by what became Tokina.

[Fujinonuser]

@ramiller500
You are right to say "made by what became Tokina." Tokina was incorporated under that name no sooner than May 1971. Between May 1950 and May 1971 they operated as Tokyo Optical Equipment Manufacturing, manufacturing lenses for Nikon, Ricoh, Mamiya, Soligor, Chinon, Miranda, possibly even early Canon, and many, many others. The glass was furnished by Hoya. Unfortunately, there is no company history available, but the development may be reconstructed in these discussions here.

[Webwalker]