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 f2.5 v's Vivitar Series 1 135mm f2.3
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:00 pm    Post subject: Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f2.5 v's Vivitar Series 1 135mm f2.3 Reply with quote

Hi
Has anyone ever compared these two lenses side by side?
The Vivitar has a cult following but in reality is it really any better than other fast 135's?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never compared to Pentax, but S1 is my favorite of all my 135mms.



PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you'll be happy with either of them.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can only tell you how incredible the Hexanon is, i've never used the Vivitar.

On duty (Hex 2.5/135) by René Maly, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do own the Hexanon 2.5/135mm and a few 2.0/135mm lenses. In addition I had the opportunity to test about half a dozen 1.8/135mm and 2/135mm lenses, but I don't know the Vivitar 2.3/135mm. This said, the Hexanon 2.5/135mm is a very capable lens, especially since you can get it for 50 - 100 CHF/EUR/USD, sometimes even for less. The Hexanon 2.5/135mm has nearly no lateral CAs (24MP FullFrame), it is slightly soft at f2.5 (useful for portraits). Stopped down it is very sharp over the entire field, and it feels very solid. Focus goes down to 1.2m, which can be useful for portraits as well.

That's what i can contribute - hopefully someone here will be able to answer your original question!
Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look for the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's awesome, imho much better than the 2.5 version.

Be wary of buying the Vivitar 2.3/135 unless you can test it first, the mint condition copy I had was utter junk, unusably bad, QC was obviously less than perfect.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Never compared to Pentax, but S1 is my favorite of all my 135mms.



Lovely shot and the bokeh is so smooth. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
I can only tell you how incredible the Hexanon is, i've never used the Vivitar.

On duty (Hex 2.5/135) by René Maly, on Flickr


Wow, that is sharp. Was this taken wide open?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
I do own the Hexanon 2.5/135mm and a few 2.0/135mm lenses. In addition I had the opportunity to test about half a dozen 1.8/135mm and 2/135mm lenses, but I don't know the Vivitar 2.3/135mm. This said, the Hexanon 2.5/135mm is a very capable lens, especially since you can get it for 50 - 100 CHF/EUR/USD, sometimes even for less. The Hexanon 2.5/135mm has nearly no lateral CAs (24MP FullFrame), it is slightly soft at f2.5 (useful for portraits). Stopped down it is very sharp over the entire field, and it feels very solid. Focus goes down to 1.2m, which can be useful for portraits as well.

That's what i can contribute - hopefully someone here will be able to answer your original question!
Stephan


Thanks Stephen. I've recently been offered the Hexanon 2.5/135 boxed, cases and like new for £43 UK. Needless to say I bought it and am awaiting it's arrival.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:

Wow, that is sharp. Was this taken wide open?


It's a sharp lens, can't remember the f/stop but i think this was more like f/4.

As mentioned here before: the f/3.2 version is sharper!
Here's a sample of the f/3.2 wide open:

Red pencil by René Maly, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Look for the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's awesome, imho much better than the 2.5 version.

Be wary of buying the Vivitar 2.3/135 unless you can test it first, the mint condition copy I had was utter junk, unusably bad, QC was obviously less than perfect.


Thanks Ian. I already have the Hexanon 3.2/135 which is superb. I wanted the 2.5/135 for its hopefully smoother bokeh. Also, as I collect and use Konica and Minolta lenses, it is one I don't have.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:

Wow, that is sharp. Was this taken wide open?


It's a sharp lens, can't remember the f/stop but i think this was more like f/4.

As mentioned here before: the f/3.2 version is sharper!
Here's a sample of the f/3.2 wide open:

Red pencil by René Maly, on Flickr


Like 1 Happy Dog


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:
I already have the Hexanon 3.2/135 which is superb. I wanted the 2.5/135 for its hopefully smoother bokeh. Also, as I collect and use Konica and Minolta lenses, it is one I don't have.


Then you know how sharp it is! Wink I see we have the same preference, i'm also a Konica and Minolta collector!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
I see we have the same preference, i'm also a Konica and Minolta collector!


I've stopped hoarding and am slowly selling all the other stuff too! Wink


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Look for the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's awesome, imho much better than the 2.5 version.


Using a 24MP FF camera, the Hexanon 3.2/135mm has slightly more contrast than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm (at equal apertures), and slightly more CAs than the 2.5/135mm. Of course the 3.2/135 can be focused to 1m, but that's not an issue when you are about to shoot portraits. The 3.2/135mm certainly is not "much better" than the 2.5 version Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:

I've stopped hoarding and am slowly selling all the other stuff too! Wink


Like 1 small Feels good, doesn't it?

stevemark wrote:

the Hexanon 3.2/135mm has slightly more contrast than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm (at equal apertures)

This i can believe, more contrast often gets interpreted as sharper/more sharpness. Anyhow: they are both very nice lenses!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

135/2.5, 135/3.2.... What about my 135/3.5? Too many versions out there. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Look for the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's awesome, imho much better than the 2.5 version.


Using a 24MP FF camera, the Hexanon 3.2/135mm has slightly more contrast than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm (at equal apertures), and slightly more CAs than the 2.5/135mm. Of course the 3.2/135 can be focused to 1m, but that's not an issue when you are about to shoot portraits. The 3.2/135mm certainly is not "much better" than the 2.5 version Wink

Stephan


I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....


Ironic.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....

Welcome to the internet, where opinions and a$$hats are everywhere, please don't be the second.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Look for the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's awesome, imho much better than the 2.5 version.


Using a 24MP FF camera, the Hexanon 3.2/135mm has slightly more contrast than the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm (at equal apertures), and slightly more CAs than the 2.5/135mm. Of course the 3.2/135 can be focused to 1m, but that's not an issue when you are about to shoot portraits. The 3.2/135mm certainly is not "much better" than the 2.5 version Wink

Stephan


I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....


Brexit ? Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I liked this forum much better before we had this idiot telling us what we should think all the time....


History is interesting sometimes.
iangreenhalgh1 joined 18 march 2011
stevemark joined 29 april 2011
Short period between this to enjoy Whoo Turtle
I cannot remember me the difference.


Last edited by Minolfan on Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
135/2.5, 135/3.2.... What about my 135/3.5? Too many versions out there. Smile


Well on a film camera my AR (AE) 135/3.5 is a nice lens overall but it doesn't impress me compared to some of my other 135mms for resolution (of course I could have a poor copy)... in my tests with cheaper common lenses would put the Hexanon slightly better than the Meyer 135mm but not so good as the old breechlock Canon 135mm f3.5.....and would add I'm a Hexanon fanboy.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Must agree with Ian,the forum is attracting a greater number of "wankers who know everything about nothing" Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
Must agree with Ian,the forum is attracting a greater number of "wankers who know everything about nothing" Rolling Eyes

The times, they are changing . Intelligent guys like you all are rare nowadays. Laugh 1