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 AR 135mm f3.2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you so much for the recommendations. I will take a look at them and see which ones I can add to my kit Like 1 small

I’m so pleased I found this great site Whoo Turtle

Thank you!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tracy wrote:
Thank you! for the welcome and both your replies Smile Your advice is very much appreciated.

Which others of the Konica lenses would be good to add to my kit please?

Thank you!


That depends on
1) what you want to do with these additional lenses
2) how much you want to spend

Nice cheap lenses are e. g. the AR 3.5/28mm, the 1.8/40mm and the 1.4/57mm or 1.4/50mm.
Always useful (portraits, landscape) is a 200mm lens such as the AR 3.5/200mm (heavy, sharp) or the AR 4/200mm (lighter, slightly less sharp and more CAs)
Nice to have may be a AR 1.8/85mm (close range portraits, general photography) or a 2/35mm (classic lens with a distinct "vintag" lokk, i. e. not very sharp wide open).
Very useful for landscapes is the 4/21mm or the 2.8/21mm. Both usually are quite expensive.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:35 am    Post subject: Konica Hexanon F3.2-135mm Reply with quote
Hello,

hereby some example pics showing our lovely Mira-Walpurga.
I do not remember to the aperture setting.






Best regards Dachs


PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8


PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have on the past few weeks bought one of these on the strength of their terrific reputation which suggests it is on of Konica's best performers. If so then it must be good as that marque seems to have pretty much universally a solid reputation for having made really excellent lenses. (I am just beginning to try a few of them). Intervening events have prevented me from testing my new 135mm f3.2 in the interim but given the excellent images represented in this thread I am looking forward to doing so. I will post some images when they are available.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8


I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8


I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.
Stephan


Thank you Stephan, very much.

I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.

In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.

All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you. In the normal lenses, now I use the Mamiya SX 55/1,8.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8


I've just been comparing a few 2.8/135mm vintage lenses, among them the Hexanon 3.2/135mm and the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm. The Mamiya certainly has better detail resolution, especially in the corners. The Hexanon is OK, but does not fulfil the high expectations i had given the excellent reputation the lens has in the internet. The same is true for several other Konica Hexanon lenses (e. g. the AR 1.7/50mm) BTW.
Stephan


Thank you Stephan, very much.

I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.

In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.

All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you. In the normal lenses, now I use the Mamiya SX 55/1,8.


Yes Stephan and Papasito.
I agree with Papasito on both counts from my experience as well.
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have one of those Rolleinar 135mm 2.8 and a Hexanon 135mm 3.2. I'm curious now and want to test them against each other.
The Hexanon was really good on its own when used the last time.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
The 135/3,2 hexanon has more contrast and is sharper than the mamiya sekor (Rolleinar) 135/2,8 from f/2,8 to f/8


Oldhand wrote:

Yes Stephan and Papasito.
I agree with Papasito on both counts from my experience as well.
Tom


Are we talking about the same Mamiya 2.8/135mm lens? I'm not a Mamiya expert, and i don't know the optical construction of all the different Mamiya and Rollei variants. However, the weight of the different 2.8/135mm variants is that different that I suspect different optical constructions as well:

Mamiya Sekor TL / DTL: 395 g
Mamiya Sekor SX (M42) 500 g
Mamiya Sekor ES: ???
Mamiya Sekor CS: 315 g
Mamiya Sekor E / EF: 310 g
Rollei (Mamiya): 305 g

When I was comparing the (heavy!) SX variant with the Konica Hexanon 3.2/135mm, the Hexanon was clearly inferior (infinity range, wide open and f5.6).

Stephan

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.

In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.

All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with.

As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.

In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.

All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with.

As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom


Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.

The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.

But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.

At least with my copies, the hexanon is very sharp at close focus.

I have two of them, and the newer has more contrast with similar resolution power than the older.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
I cannot speak for Papasito but I was replying to this statement:
"I use the 135 mm lens in the segment from near 1 m. to 2,5 m.

In this range, the hexanon 135/3,2 is a great lens to me.

All you said about the hexanon 1,7/50 , I agree with you."
This is what I was agreeing with.

Ah OK, I did misunderstand that!


Oldhand wrote:

As far as I know, the Rolleinar was the Mamiya SX re-badged.
Tom

I don't own the Rolleinar, and I've never seen a copy of it. It looks like a re-badged SX, and some people on the German digicamclub report, that the widely published weight of the Rolleinar ("305 g") is wrong. These owners report about 500g, which would be in line with the Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
...


I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens and weight:
#1


PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Hexanon 135/3,5. As I understood your lens is capable for close up's. IQ is wonderful!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
...


I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?

Stephan


I have two 135/3,2.

The older is equal in contrast than my SX.

The newer has more contrast of all of them.

The older 3,2 has haze


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This morning I find two Hexanons on flea market, 135/3,2 and 57/1,4 !
135/3,2 is really great.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paulius wrote:
This morning I find two Hexanons on flea market, 135/3,2 and 57/1,4 !
135/3,2 is really great.


Both lenses are excellent when you use them to their strengths.
Lucky find
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
The lens and weight:
#1


Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one???


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
...


I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?

Stephan


I have two 135/3,2.

The older is equal in contrast than my SX.

The newer has more contrast of all of them.

The older 3,2 has haze



Now I have a second SX 135/2,8 lens.

IT's near New.

Great lens!!!!!

I can't fine any difference between the IQ of IT and my newer Hexanon 135/3,2, except the mamiya is warmer rendering.

One have to be sold and do not know which.

Both are so nice lens!!!!!


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

Actually, the Rolleinar MC version has more contrast, by far, than the SX.
The Rolleinar has a bit more contrast than the hexanon too.
But the Hexanon has more contrast than the SX.
...


I just have checked these lenses again, and I can't see any difference, contrast-wise (wide open), between my Mamiya SX 2.8/135mm and my Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm. Maybe you sample of the Mamiya is slightly fogged ...?

Stephan


I have two 135/3,2.

The older is equal in contrast than my SX.

The newer has more contrast of all of them.

The older 3,2 has haze



Now I have a second SX 135/2,8 lens.

IT's near New.

Great lens!!!!!

I can't fine any difference between the IQ of IT and my newer Hexanon 135/3,2, except the mamiya is warmer rendering.

One have to be sold and do not know which.

Both are so nice lens!!!!!


PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
blotafton wrote:
The lens and weight:
#1


Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one???


It's not that heavy for me. A Hexanon 135mm 2.5? I don't have one unfortunately, but it seems people like it and I'd say that the price is ok if you're specifically looking for one.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
blotafton wrote:
The lens and weight:


Thats a lot of weight ,isn't it? I've been offered a 135 2.5 for 40 euros , good condition , never seen one in reality ,is that worth it? Would the 2.5 be bigger size that this one???


The Mamyia SX 2.8/135mm is 505g (similar to the famous [4/4] Rokkors). The Konica AR 2.5/135mm is 665g, and the nFD 2.9/135mm is 677g. So yes, both the SX and the AR 2.5/135mm are heavy lenses.

Is the AR 2.5/135mm worth 40 Euros? I certainly would say yes! Unless you have other, faster lenses of course. The Konica is well built, no wobbles and no play, it feels solid, you can focus it down to 1.2 m which is useful for tight portraits (most 2.8/135mm lenses go only to 1.5m). Focusing is quite stiff, compared to the much smoother Rokkors, and the Hexanon AR aperture ring generally is a pain (difficult to turn and very easy to lock in the "AE" position). The Konica 2.5/135mm has a lower contrast than the Rokkor 2.8/135mm [4/4], and less CAs. The Konica, stopped down to f5.6, has no visible CAs at all, which is quite remarkable.

For size, see the image below.

Stephan




PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3