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

Hexanon AR 135mm lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Hexanon AR 135mm lenses Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I only have the f3.5 version and it's a nice lens but I have better 135s for sharpness.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.

Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolf wrote:
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.

Wink


Yes, thank you, Rolf. This time I did visit that website first, before asking here for opinions. Still, I was left wanting to know the views of posters here. The contributors to this forum know quite a lot about such things as this. Their opinions are valuable and important to me.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Take a look at my 135 http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-135-f3-5-the-wilkinson-sword-so-sharp-it-cuts-t42799.html


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:
Rolf wrote:
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.

Wink


Yes, thank you, Rolf. This time I did visit that website first, before asking here for opinions. Still, I was left wanting to know the views of posters here. The contributors to this forum know quite a lot about such things as this. Their opinions are valuable and important to me.


Of course, you can do this - no problem. But you know - the recommendations are as always very different. A question of cams, sensors, etc etc.

Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
Take a look at my 135 http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-135-f3-5-the-wilkinson-sword-so-sharp-it-cuts-t42799.html


Thank you for that reference, eddieitman. I read all the posts and they are very helpful. A poster on your thread made such an important point:

Prices on these 135s, and on other Hexanon lenses for that matter, have been rising markedly as popularity of all the various m4/3 mirrorless cameras has ascended. Thus pricing from say, 2010 for example, means little. The market is in motion. And it's on that aspect I admit I have most trouble getting a handle.

For the last couple of years, money in Hexanon glass has grown more in value than money in the bank! Posters here who own many Hexanon lenses are very smart cookies; geniuses even. They are able to take great photos thereby enjoying their investments while simultaneously watching them grow in value! This is a fantastic win-win!


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


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.


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.


That's valuable advice, and great photos, too. Thanks.

The 3.2 is the one I'm looking at. But price is high and I don't really know how much I should pay. Prices on all these Hexanon AR lenses are ascending in real time. Wish I had a time machine and could go back five years before the m4/3 cameras appeared.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="iangreenhalgh1"........The 3.2 is the best of those..[/quote]

+1.

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

Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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)

Last edited by konicamera on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:38 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
konicamera wrote:
The Hexar 135 is a very good lens, but it is a bit more massive and less wieldy than, for example, the 135/3.2.


Without getting the scales and the ruler out, I can't be 100% accurate but there is little difference in size and weight, not enough to concern anyone imho.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
konicamera wrote:
The Hexar 135 is a very good lens, but it is a bit more massive and less wieldy than, for example, the 135/3.2.


Without getting the scales and the ruler out, I can't be 100% accurate but there is little difference in size and weight, not enough to concern anyone imho.


The Hexar and the 135/3.2 weigh 550g and 390g respectively, while the compact 135/3.5 weighs 315g.

In terms of dimensions, the Hexar is 68/95mm, the 3.2 is 63/95 and the compact is 63/82. Interestingly, while the f3.2 is more luminous than the Hexar, it is 5mm narrower. The Hexar is as wide as the f2.5, a lens that weighs 650g. Lots of unnecessarily thick barrel parts on the Hexar.

Last edited by konicamera on Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:17 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm gonna have to get mine out and weigh them, I've never noticed a difference that large.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1