Konica Hexanon AR 200mm f3.5

[Oldhand]

A very nicely made lens that is quite heavy because of its massive glass elements.
The results are quite beautiful.
Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5

[papasito]

Great images, Tom.

Very good lens, as some konica lenses are.

Thanks for sharing

[D1N0]

I was wondering about this one. I think they used a Sonnar design.

[DigiChromeEd]

There's a 200mm f4 as well but it's image quality is inferior.

[kds315*]

[stevemark]

[Oldhand]

Thank you everyone for the kind wpords

[D1N0]

I agree. A comparison with the Jupiter 21m would be nice.

This review in Dutch shows the lens formula:
200mm test march 1973 Focus Magazine by The lens profile, on Flickr

This is the Jupiter 21m:

[DigiChromeEd]

[quidam]

It was quite an expensive lens at the time.835 Dutch guilders is around 380 € !

[KEO]

Wow, no wonder it's heavy considering that huge second element. That's one big hunk of glass.

[stevemark]

[LittleAlex]

At the end of 90-th I had that lens with rubber focusing ring (the last one in the line). And the impression was very, very bad. The picture was too “flat and lifeless”. So, I sold it out.

Yesterday I had been offered, for $25, one with the chrome ring – the very first in the line. I decided to give to it the another chance.

I discovered, that it is completely different story now. It steel needs rise of the contrast from the final image. However, the picture is very detailed and sharp.
And the “boke” is really wonderful!

There are some samples from it (all at f/5/6):

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/93142686_2915053411915310_6075053230977449984_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQlVwWKVoKcJfBUWGpOygN1xU5N7ydOrn8nG_Tx1krKrD3CeCW8FJEtzeIcxtFYI7mQ&_nc_ht=scontent-waw1-1.xx&_nc_tp=7&oh=68a020e3c419804bfec627f10d6c05cd&oe=5EC05E4E

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/93776994_2915111895242795_2177256704893255680_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQnjBV3WOrM5Zhx0mIGBys7lXw4nE09KpI_2mA18MNN8RbbDuyMIS1CTQh7UFihOvlA&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=fd51cb217a5978a54d9b6072c6dc1c63&oe=5EC1DA64

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/94146770_2915199195234065_4152022752800276480_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQkvs14XwCpRO2Q0kcxew8d9pnWB0OIAsVVI0_qMZE0z8qr1FrfskB3HqWug7p8Bq_k&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=3a979ba67ec61b80d3a71840c48aed32&oe=5EC07D34

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/93973919_2915524835201501_8374823706190413824_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_oc=AQkOP8jreAa1QVYH0swSgFSmdVE6vLOmpYlewZH1AWIgMU5wjlccy4ZnUpfI1KYpzWg&_nc_ht=scontent-waw1-1.xx&oh=a80cc8043c10edc610208b732de957c5&oe=5EC24601

[stevemark]

Today I got another version of the Konica AR 3.5/200mm, my third one (middle lens here in the image):



On the left the early preset [5/5] version with same optical construction as the F-mount Hexanon 3.5/200mm. In the middle an early version of the [5/4] computation, now with automatic aperture. On the right the last version of the Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm with rubber waffle focusing grip and green AE markings on the aperture ring. It seems that the two later versions (middle and right) share the same optical construction, but I would rather first test and compare the two version before claiming taht they perform identically.

S

[D1N0]

The corresponding numbers on the distance scale and the same position of the infra red mark suggest it was just a cosmetic update.

[stevemark]

[Zamo]

[stevemark]

[ektar]

@LittleAlex: Any chance you can update the links on the pics?

[Oldhand]

I had a few minutes this afternoon to myself, and took the Hexanon 3.5/200 for a little walk.
Here are some images.
Fuji .jpg's - Velvia simulation
Some looked better in mono

Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8

[ektar]

Very nice. I’ve got one on the way; will be adapting to M4/3.

[Oldhand]

Thank you.
Here are a few from this afternoon
Tom


#1


#2


#3

[ektar]

Again, Bravo!

[Alun Thomas]

I recently bought an Konishiroku F mount preset 200mm F/3.5 to get the F-AR mount adapter off it. Then I bought an FTA camera to get the preset 28mm F/3.5 lens with it, and it was accompanied by an early AR mount preset 200mm F/3.5 which has the same 5/5 optical formula as the earlier lens. Both needed cleaning, the AR lens did clean up, while the F mount lens had some marking I could not completely clean away. When I tested them both I noticed something slightly unusual, which is that (especially noticeable when wide open) , the performance at the edge of the image is equal and in some cases better than the center. I took some 100% crops of images taken of subjects between 200-250m away. These images are from the AR mount lens, but the F mount one was comparable.



F/3.5 in the center of the frame. Resolution is there although reduced/obscured by glow/fringing.



F/8 in the center of the frame. Resolution is good, and colour fringing now gone.



F/3.5 in the corner - quite surprisingly the image quality is better than in the center at that aperture. Resolution is slightly better, and not much colour fringing to be seen.



F/8 in the corner - the image quality cleans up further.

[caspert79]

This seems to be a very nice lens!