Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Konica Hexanon 3.5/200mm vs Hexanon 4/200mm vs Hexar 4/200mm
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 4:45 pm    Post subject: Konica Hexanon 3.5/200mm vs Hexanon 4/200mm vs Hexar 4/200mm Reply with quote

Since there's not that much reliable information about these lenses in the internet, i've compared them today. As usual, my focus is on resolution and CAs in the infinity range. Maybe others can contribute to this thread by adding specific information on bokeh, distortion and other qualities ...

CLICK TWICE ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO SEE IT FULL SIZE!!



As we can see, the second version of the Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm (until 1978) in fact is better than the later Hexanon AR 4/200mm (1978-87). To my surprise, the Hexar 4/200mm (1975-1978) is as sharp or maybe even slightly sharper than the more expensive AR 3.5/200mm!

I have added a few well known other 4/200mm from the same time (Canon FD, Minolta MC-X, Nikkor Ai). They all are at least as good as the Hexanon AR 3.5/200m.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Hexar (Tokina lens?) Seems to be the better of the bunch to me.

A lot of CA in all of the lenses.

Better to BUY an ED or APO 180 Lens of you use it frecuently.


PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
The Hexar (Tokina lens?) Seems to be the better of the bunch to me.

Yes, i think so too. Large lenses ususally are easier to correct, and the Hexar 4/200mm is huge.

That reminds me of the "prehistoric" Minolta Rokkor-QD 4.5/300mm (1965) which has not more CAs than the high tech Pentax M* 4/300mm ED (with 3 large ED lenses!) from around 1980. However, the Minolta is about twice as long as the Pentax ...

papasito wrote:

A lot of CA in all of the lenses.

Not that much ... look at 2.8/135mm lenses, they have about the same amount of lateral CAs. And 300mm ED lenses such as the Pentax M* 4/300mm or the Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm IF-ED have much more CAs!!

papasito wrote:
Better to BUY an ED or APO 180 Lens of you use it frecuently.

Right, the Apo Telyt 3.4/180mm or the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED have less CAs. However even the AF Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED has quite a few lateral CAs ... and the CAs from most of the 4/200mm lenses shown above can be corrected quite easily in postprocessing since most of these lenses are really sharp, even wide open.

Look at this example! First the entire image (reduced from 6000px wide to 800 px wide):



Here's a 100% crop from the border (see above for exact location in the image):


And here's a 100% crop from the extreme corner:


These images were taken with the Minolta MC-X 4/200mm wide open (at f4.0)!!

I'm pretty sure images taken with the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED or even the Apo Telyt 3.4/180mm wouldn't be visibly better, at least not with 24 MP FF (as shown above). I haven't tried theses lenses with the 43 MP A7RII/RIII, but i'll do so tomorrow.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephan, you should try to acquire a Sigma 180mm F2.8 or F5.6 APO to add to this comparison. I know it's a much newer lens (1989) but it does use 3 (2 for the F5.6) SLD lenses up front. Their CA chart suggests it has less CA than a 200mm F4, which is why I thought it would be interesting to compare, particularly as it can be had as cheap as any of these other lenses in Nikon or Canon mounts and has a manual focus capability (and even manual aperture on Nikon).

No real surprises for the 200/4, like the 135 F2.8's and 50/1.4's. All very well understood optical designs by that time, so I probably wouldn't expect bokeh to look that different among them. Like 1 small The interesting aspects are whether or not they maintain their performance at macro distances, since they're generally decent for that being lightweight and sharp wide open, if you need the extra subject distance.


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
Stephan, you should try to acquire a Sigma 180mm F2.8 ...

Yeah, I know ... there are lots of lenses I should acquire Wink
However usually I simply take what's available locally, and i don't specifically buy lenses for tests. So my collection is a bit "at random", but that's part of the fun: I never know what's next Wink

S

[/i]