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

Updated Konica information on artaphot
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:39 pm    Post subject: Updated Konica information on artaphot Reply with quote
During the weekend I have updated and translated the information on Konica AR primes. Occasionally here's some historical background, but mostly i've been trying to share some information about the performance of the lenses on 24 MP and 43 MP FF. While this information is pretty limited, it is based on my own experience and my own careful tests comparing (and using) many lenses from different manufacturers. Don't expect fanboyish chatter, though. I have managed to check / update the primes; Konica zomm lenses will follow as soon as possible.

www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive

If someone wants to share his/her experience with a specific lens, I am more than happy to insert such statements (under your name of course) into the artaphot website.

Since my English skills are rather limited, I am happy to get improved versions of the corresponding texts as well ... and if someone is finding a mistake => please inform me, too.

As you know I keep my website completely free from ads, and this will remain so also in the future.

S


PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i very like your site, but, would appreciate to have it all in english please, as translator might mess things up many times
thank you


PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a splendid resource.
Thank you for taking the time to collect and collate this valuable information.
It is very much appreciated, even though we don't always remember to say thank you.

Tom


PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
i very like your site, but, would appreciate to have it all in english please, as translator might mess things up many times
thank you


I have already prepared entries for about 100 Canon FD and new FD lenses, as well as about 50 of the most common manual Nikkors. They certainly will be published in English. And I'm painfully aware that the Minolta and Mamyia stuff needs an overhaul, including a translation into the English language.

AI translation machines may speed up the process since they often produce a rather meaningful raw translation. Correcting and improving such a raw translation often is easier and quicker than re-writing the entire text myself.

S


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:01 am    Post subject: Re: Updated Konica information on artaphot Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
During the weekend I have updated and translated the information on Konica AR primes. Occasionally here's some historical background, but mostly i've been trying to share some information about the performance of the lenses on 24 MP and 43 MP FF. While this information is pretty limited, it is based on my own experience and my own careful tests comparing (and using) many lenses from different manufacturers. Don't expect fanboyish chatter, though. I have managed to check / update the primes; Konica zomm lenses will follow as soon as possible.

www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive

If someone wants to share his/her experience with a specific lens, I am more than happy to insert such statements (under your name of course) into the artaphot website.

Since my English skills are rather limited, I am happy to get improved versions of the corresponding texts as well ... and if someone is finding a mistake => please inform me, too.

As you know I keep my website completely free from ads, and this will remain so also in the future.

S



Thanks Stephan! Like 1 small

That is going to be quite a task!

It is a very well put-together site, I have consulted it on many occasions. I am fortunate in that I can understand German quite well, but I realise many don't and the English translations will be much appreciated I'm sure.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, very informative!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some information added:

AR 4-4.6/28-135mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/437-konica-hexanon-28-135mm-f4-46
AR 3.5/35-70mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/384-konica-hexanon-35-70mm-f35
AR 4.0/35-70mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/391-konica-hexanon-35-70mm-f4
AR 3.5-4.5/35-70mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/523-konica-hexanon-35-70mm-f35-45
AR 2.8/35-100mm: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/385-konica-hexanon-35-100mm-f28-varifocal

Both the Konica AR 2.8/35-100mm as well as the Konica AR 4-4.5/28-135mm are interesting pieces of history. The varifocal AR 2.8/35-100mm was not only a very fast lens, but at its time (1968) certainly the best 35mm-XXmm zoom. Previous attempts for creating a wideangle zoom were limited to the Voigtländer-Zoomar 1:2.8 f=36mm.... 82mm and an obscure Nikon-Prototype 2.8-4 35-85mm (1961). At least the Voigtländer was abysmal. The only zoom in that range selling well was the Nikkor 3.5/43-86mm (not exatly a wideangle, and not a stellar lens as well). Stopped down, the AR 2.8/35-100mm was nearly as good as a prime, and the speed of f2.8 was quite useful for reportage.

The AR 4-4.6/28-135mm is interesting as well, even though it was kind of dead end. It was an extremely complicated design (18 lenses, five independent groups moving!), and its focusing mechanism really was innovative. Sadly, the AF age was just beginning when the lens reached the shelves, and that was the end of the story. The lens, which was manufactured by Tokina, was also solt als Tokina AT-X, but not even Tokina in their official history website has it listed ...

The tree AR 35-70mm llenses are so-so. While their optical consruction is closely related to the excellent Canon 2.8-3.5/35-70 and Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm lenses, they can't really compete. Neverteless they should be in any Konica collection, of course!

S


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hi stevemark,

in your opinion and maybe some 'tests' (how I hate that word ..)- does the type of sensor make any difference in the image quality?

Could it be the old aps-c 16mb let's say ' the best option' for old primes ( as i been reading on multiple places) ?

I can not comment on that as Im on 16mb Fuji, that gives me a very filmic result, which I do like.

From the other hand, I've seen a lot of pics of mf 's on Fuji GFX and can't say that I found something too loose or smudgy ..

and thanx for sharing your stuff and knowledge


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
hi stevemark,

in your opinion and maybe some 'tests' (how I hate that word ..)- does the type of sensor make any difference in the image quality?

I have a lot of experience with vintage lenses on 24 MP Sony FF sensors, and some experience using the 43 MP FF Sony sensor. Many years ago - just at the beginning of the Sony Nex system (pre FF) I was using 12 MP, 16 MP and 24 MP APS-C-sensors as well. Occasionally I have be using modified sensors as well (Kolari 0.8mm sensor stack on A7S, Ful Spectrum sensor on A100), or cameras with other sensors (Leica M 240, Nikon D800, Leica S2, Fuji GFX, you name it).

From that combined experience I still think that the 12 MP FF and the 24 MP FF sensor is best suited for vintage lenses:
1) The lens is used as intended (field of view remains as it was in film days)
2) Pixel density is not too high

Testing the Leica M240 and a Kolari-modified Sony A7S with several fast lenses designed for SLRs (e. f. fast 50mm, and retrofocus wideangles) didn't reveal any differences between the common Sony sensors (with a thick filter stack) and the Leica/Kolari solutions (extremely thin filter stack). That said, when using rangefinder wideangles, the difference betwenn thoick and thin filter stack was dramatic (Biogon ZM C 4.5/21mm, Zeiss ZM 2/35, and others).

Of course the entire color managment for a certain camera (not only the sensor!) can make a huge difference. I wouldn't say it's the sensor, though ... it's the entire system (filter stack, pixels, noise reduction, image processor, ...)


alex_d wrote:
Could it be the old aps-c 16mb let's say ' the best option' for old primes ( as i been reading on multiple places) ?

I don't think so. Before the arrival of mirrorless FF cameras I have been using 12 MP and 16 MP APS-C sensor for vintage glass. I was never really happy with it. Especially 24 MP aps-c is too much for most vintage lenses, but 16 MP can be demanding too. Using a vintage 1.4/50mm at f1.4 results in quite visible purple fringing all over the image. Stopping down to f2 may solve the problem - but leaves me with a DOF equivalent to a 2.8/75mm lens. On a FF 24 MP camera however I can use any 1.7/85mm lens wide open, without problems.

Wideangles and superwides aren't much fun on an APS-C camera either. A common 2.8/28 becomes a strange 4/42mm lens, the 2.8/24mm a boring 4/36mm. The 20mm i love so much behaves like a 30mm, and even the 17mm isn't much fun on APS-C (and it's expensive ...!!)

Most OEM vintage primes are very useful on 24 MP FF, as long as you know their properties and limits:

* Minolta & Canon 4/17mm? stop down to at least f8 for landscapes
* Konica 4/21mm? dito
* Konica 1.4/57 or Minolta 1.4/58? Excellent for b/w portraits wide open, and perfect for lanscapes at f5.6 or f8
* Canon / Konica / Nikon / Minolta 1.8/85 or 1.7/85? Excellent for portraits wide open, very good for landscapes when stopped down
* most 2.8/135mm? Very good for portraits at f2.8; landscapes may be better using a good 4/80-200 or 4/70-210 zoom at f=135 and f8!!
* 200mm lenses? go for the ED Nikkor 2.8/180 or even a Leica APO if perfection is what you want - otherwise take a cheap OME 4/20mm and remove CAs in PP

These are just a few examples. Using an APS-C sensor with the Konica 4/21mm will not solve the problems of the lens (low contrast at f4 and f5.6), but increase it - and you have the "superwide" fun. Exactly the same is true for a OEM 4/200mm: CA problems will remain even if you crop out the corners since the pixel density is higher.

Some years ago I have been comparing several lenses on 24 MP FF as well as 24 MP APS-C.

APS-C wasn't fun.

S


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:




alex_d wrote:
Could it be the old aps-c 16mb let's say ' the best option' for old primes ( as i been reading on multiple places) ?

I don't think so. Before the arrival of mirrorless FF cameras I have been using 12 MP and 16 MP APS-C sensor for vintage glass. I was never really happy with it. Especially 24 MP aps-c is too much for most vintage lenses, but 16 MP can be demanding too. Using a vintage 1.4/50mm at f1.4 results in quite visible purple fringing all over the image. Stopping down to f2 may solve the problem - but leaves me with a DOF equivalent to a 2.8/75mm lens. On a FF 24 MP camera however I can use any 1.7/85mm lens wide open, without problems.

Wideangles and superwides aren't much fun on an APS-C camera either. A common 2.8/28 becomes a strange 4/42mm lens, the 2.8/24mm a boring 4/36mm. The 20mm i love so much behaves like a 30mm, and even the 17mm isn't much fun on APS-C (and it's expensive ...!!)

Most OEM vintage primes are very useful on 24 MP FF, as long as you know their properties and limits:


APS-C wasn't fun.

S


I'll go along with this for at least part of the ride.

I struggled mightily with some lenses on 12mp D-200. There were also a few that were very good with it, despite the weird focal length equivalences. I don't know if it was just my imagination, but that camera seemed to do better with f3.5 lenses. The lone exception to this in my user experience was the 1.8 85mm. There were more than a few that had to be stopped down to f5.6-f8 to provide usable images.

I can tell you that the longer focal lengths, and better quality zooms are much easier to use on the f/f D-810.

I had some very good experiences with the D-200 with the old 28mm f3.5 nikkor aboard, as well as the old stand-by 50mm f2.
It does take a bit of time getting used to using that glass on the smaller sensor, which incidentally, the glass was never designed for.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark,

thank you for your thorough explanation.

But im mising the next information: is the ' pixel density' of modern sensors somewhat too dense for film era lenses, at least the common one (well yes take the konica ar primes range for example)

im aware of the crop.
it's like having a land rover.
great to ride but bitch to park in cities. but you still drive it (will not mention the series .. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let us remember the problems focusing lenses faster than f/2.5 using optical viewfinder with focus screens physically unable to resolve. For example, Canon 5D needed EE-S focus screen replacement for stock screen. For this reason many fast lens "tests" were inaccurate due to missed focus.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
stevemark,

...

But im mising the next information: is the ' pixel density' of modern sensors somewhat too dense for film era lenses, at least the common one (well yes take the konica ar primes range for example)

...


12 MP FF / 6 MP APS-C: most vintage lenses work very well, especially on APS-C (pixel densitiy is OK for nearly all vintage lenses later than 1965, and "bad corners" are cropped). On APS-C usually no difference between "wide open" and "f11" (apart from DOF of course)

24 MP FF / 12 MP APS-C: Many vintage lenses work pretty well; detail resolution usually is quite good in the f5.6 to f11 range (for primes). Fast f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 lenses used wide open often have a purple tint caused by longitudinal CAs.

50 MP FF / 24 MP APS-C: Some vintage lenses work well, other not so much. Detail resolution may be quite OK, but said purple "overcast" (loCAs) is seen not only wide open, but also at f2 or even f2.8. Often even very good vintage lenses must be stopped down to 5.6 get rid of these purple problems, and at f11 diffraction starts to kick in. Which leaves you with 5.6 and f8 for best image quality ...

An oversimplified generalisation of course, but nevertheless ...

S


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great job as always mate. really appropriated all the effort you put on the website Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Has it ever been confirmed whether Tokina outsourced lenses were still Konica optical designs or was the optical design also outsourced to Tokina?

Are there substantial differences between the build and operation of Konica-made and Tokina-made lenses?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lida wrote:
Has it ever been confirmed whether Tokina outsourced lenses were still Konica optical designs or was the optical design also outsourced to Tokina?


Yes, sure. As I've been writing here not too long ago, all those desings are geuine Konica (as confirmed by patents):

* AR 2.8/21mm "compact" and AR 2.8/24mm "compact" are one patent (Konica)
* AR 3.5/28mm "compact" and AR 2.8/35mm "compact" are onother patent (Konica)
* AR 1.8/28mm is a Konica patent
* I think I've seen the Konica patent on the AR 1.8/40mm, but I may be wrong (I have to check my old hard drives for that one)
* AR 4-4.6/ 28-135mm is a Konica patent
* I am pretty sure I've also seen the Konica Patents for the AR 4/35-70 and the AR 3.5-4.5/35-70mm (not 100% sure though)
* the AR 5.6/400mm clearly has a very different lens section compared to the contemporary Tokina 5.6/400mm

So yes - clearly confirmed! Well, one exception - the AR 1.8/50mm. I haven't seen patents on that (and probably there was simply no innovation on that lens which could have peen patented anyway). Nevertheless probably Konica too - Tokina certainly wasn't famous for designing fast normal primes back then ...

Lida wrote:
Are there substantial differences between the build and operation of Konica-made and Tokina-made lenses?

The two "cheapos" AR 1.8/50mm and AR 3.5-4.5/35-70mm clearly are "plastic fantastic" lithweight lenses. All otherlensees mentioned above are built to the same standards as the previous Konica-made lenses (at least as far as one can see / feel from the outside). The only (small) differenc is the shape of the "AE-unlock-button" on the aperture ringRound on the Konica made lenses, but elongated on the lenses listed above.

S


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Lida wrote:
Has it ever been confirmed whether Tokina outsourced lenses were still Konica optical designs or was the optical design also outsourced to Tokina?


Yes, sure. As I've been writing here not too long ago, all those desings are geuine Konica (as confirmed by patents):

* AR 2.8/21mm "compact" and AR 2.8/24mm "compact" are one patent (Konica)
* AR 3.5/28mm "compact" and AR 2.8/35mm "compact" are onother patent (Konica)
* AR 1.8/28mm is a Konica patent
* I think I've seen the Konica patent on the AR 1.8/40mm, but I may be wrong (I have to check my old hard drives for that one)
* AR 4-4.6/ 28-135mm is a Konica patent
* I am pretty sure I've also seen the Konica Patents for the AR 4/35-70 and the AR 3.5-4.5/35-70mm (not 100% sure though)
* the AR 5.6/400mm clearly has a very different lens section compared to the contemporary Tokina 5.6/400mm

So yes - clearly confirmed! Well, one exception - the AR 1.8/50mm. I haven't seen patents on that (and probably there was simply no innovation on that lens which could have peen patented anyway). Nevertheless probably Konica too - Tokina certainly wasn't famous for designing fast normal primes back then ...

Lida wrote:
Are there substantial differences between the build and operation of Konica-made and Tokina-made lenses?

The two "cheapos" AR 1.8/50mm and AR 3.5-4.5/35-70mm clearly are "plastic fantastic" lithweight lenses. All otherlensees mentioned above are built to the same standards as the previous Konica-made lenses (at least as far as one can see / feel from the outside). The only (small) differenc is the shape of the "AE-unlock-button" on the aperture ringRound on the Konica made lenses, but elongated on the lenses listed above.

S


That’s great thank you for your detailed reply! I always felt the 40mm was a little “cheapo” too. Very simple to disassemble from my experience.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


12 MP FF / 6 MP APS-C: most vintage lenses work very well, especially on APS-C (pixel densitiy is OK for nearly all vintage lenses later than 1965, and "bad corners" are cropped). On APS-C usually no difference between "wide open" and "f11" (apart from DOF of course)

24 MP FF / 12 MP APS-C: Many vintage lenses work pretty well; detail resolution usually is quite good in the f5.6 to f11 range (for primes). Fast f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 lenses used wide open often have a purple tint caused by longitudinal CAs.

50 MP FF / 24 MP APS-C: Some vintage lenses work well, other not so much. Detail resolution may be quite OK, but said purple "overcast" (loCAs) is seen not only wide open, but also at f2 or even f2.8. Often even very good vintage lenses must be stopped down to 5.6 get rid of these purple problems, and at f11 diffraction starts to kick in. Which leaves you with 5.6 and f8 for best image quality ...

An oversimplified generalisation of course, but nevertheless ...

S


These are interesting observations, letting me not to feel bad for I am still using the "old" 2010s Sony technologies.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:
These are interesting observations, letting me not to feel bad for I am still using the "old" 2010s Sony technologies.


Old? Maybe. Not obsolete. I am still using a 12MP FF SONY A7S. As Stephan suggested, my experience is also that 12MP FF is very legacy-lens-friendly.

Anyway, what would be the point feeling bad for using an "old" 2010's camera when you are happy using 1960's/70's/80's lenses? Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In fact, nothing bad, and I am fully agree with you. I have just some itch of curiosity and desire for the newest Sony and Fuji cameras. Some shots I've seen taken with old lenses look fantastic on their improved sensors. But then I am saying to myself that I haven't even fully explored the potential of the setups I dispose, and this reduces my GAS.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Anyway, what would be the point feeling bad for using an "old" 2010's camera when you are happy using 1960's/70's/80's lenses?


well, all said .. to the point, or in the nutshell, or ..

@stevemark

thank you for the explanation.
i would not need more scientific one than what you wrote.
a test executed in the right way gives the real life analysis and the data.

i have noticed on 16mb aps-c purple ca wide open on lot of 'one-of-the-best' legacy std vintage lenses, all off course multi layered with stuff and coating.
however, the 'worst' a lens it is in general ranking - the less purple ca occures.

so, in your opinion - what causes that purple ca on a type of a sensor to be stronger and on other (almost) not exising ?
i'm aware that all lenses have it but some are better corrected.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:

i have noticed on 16mb aps-c purple ca wide open on lot of 'one-of-the-best' legacy std vintage lenses, all off course multi layered with stuff and coating.
however, the 'worst' a lens it is in general ranking - the less purple ca occures.

so, in your opinion - what causes that purple ca on a type of a sensor to be stronger and on other (almost) not exising ?
i'm aware that all lenses have it but some are better corrected.


This are plain good old "chromatic aberrations" (CAs) - longitudinal chromatic aberrations to be precise.
First a short explanation / definition:
1) lateral CAs appear as colored lines towards the edge & corners. They occur since usually the green and blue image have the same size, but the red or purple image is slightly bigger than the blue/green image. Easy to correct in PP.
2) longitudinal CAs are caused by a different focal point for different colors, e. g. when blue/green is in focus, the red image is slighhtly unsharp, and vice versa. This results in a purple "overcast" in the entire image, especially wide open. Difficult to correct in PP.

It's the latter phenomenon that explains your observation:
alex_d wrote:

i have noticed on 16mb aps-c purple ca wide open on lot of 'one-of-the-best' legacy std vintage lenses, ... however, the 'worst' a lens it is in general ranking - the less purple ca occures.


Here again a simple general principle:
1) glass with a high refraction has also high dispersion (=lots of CAs)
2) glass with a low refraction has also a low dispersion (=few CAs)

As with all gereralizations it's not always true, but it's a good "rule of thumb".

If two lenses have a similar optical construction, and one is made from low refractive (=low dispersive) glass it will have less CAs than the other one made with high refractive (=high dispersive) glass.

However, high refractive (=high dipersive) glass is very useful for correcting the other monochromatic aberrations, especially with fast and wide lenses. Thus most manufacturers have been using high refractive glass when designing fast normal lenses as soon as they became available - but this often has led to more pronounced chromatic aberrations, too!

Glass with a high refraction (nD >1.8, v=25) is expensive, and glass with low dispersion (v=70, nD=1.5) or very low dispersion (v>80, nD=1.4) is expensive too. Using "normal" glass is much cheaper, and in the case of normal lenses results in lenses with higher monochromatic aberrations (spherical aberration, coma etc), but lower CAs.

Take for example the Minolta MD-III 1.2/50 vs the MD-III 2/50; The f1.2 has several lenses made from a expensiv glass with nD=1.8 and v=40, whereas the f2 lens is made from cheaper glass with nD=1.72 and v=52 thus resulting in (slightly) less CAs. Monochromatic aberrations are comparable though, since the f2 lens doesn't need the strogly curved lens radii of the f1.2 lens.

Konica seems to have used cheaper glass in several of their lenses, e. g. in the AR 4/200mm (v=64 instead of the more common v=70 found in the Canon nFD 4/200, or v=80 found in the Nikkor ED 2.8/180). Similarly the 1.8/85 has less CAs and more monochromatic aberrations than the MD 1.7/85 or the Canon and Nikon 1.8/85 lenses, indicating the use of glass with a lower refractive index nD (I don't know the exact numbers, though).

S


PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found Konica lenses always a mixed bag in terms of performance. Some aficionados attribute special qualities to them, but I have trouble seeing it. The are a few exceptions IMO, like the Hexanon 135/3.2, but it takes stopping down before it becomes excellent. I liked the Hexanon 57/1.2 also but the prices have gone insane.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I found Konica lenses always a mixed bag in terms of performance. Some aficionados attribute special qualities to them, but I have trouble seeing it.


Street prices 1985, Adorama (prices in US $):

2.8/20 (or 2.8/21)
Canon: 187.--
Konica: 140.--
Minolta: 210.--
Nikon: 260.--


1.8/85 (or 2/85)
Canon: 145.--
Konica: 100.--
Minolta: 125.--
Nikon: 158.--


4/200
Canon: 90.--
Konica: 45.--
Minolta: 78.--
Nikon: 167.--

Pretty interesting ...

S


PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
I found Konica lenses always a mixed bag in terms of performance. Some aficionados attribute special qualities to them, but I have trouble seeing it.


Street prices 1985, Adorama (prices in US $):

2.8/20 (or 2.8/21)
Canon: 187.--
Konica: 140.--
Minolta: 210.--
Nikon: 260.--


1.8/85 (or 2/85)
Canon: 145.--
Konica: 100.--
Minolta: 125.--
Nikon: 158.--


4/200
Canon: 90.--
Konica: 45.--
Minolta: 78.--
Nikon: 167.--

Pretty interesting ...

S


I had no idea, but it puts things in perspective.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2