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

Hoya Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:39 am    Post subject: Hoya Lenses Reply with quote
What are Hoya lenses like? Any gems in there, in particular the wider lenses?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
see tokina lenses because hoya lenses are and were mainly manufactured by tokina (and now tokina is part of hoya)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Compared to others this one semms to be a good one : http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667685 / http://www.pbase.com/steephill/28mms
Maybe other ones are in the same league (often I saw the 135mm f:2.8 lens - same, silver aperture ring Smile - in different mount too, on ebay with a final price around ~20-25 GBP ).


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got two, one is OK (Hoya HMC Macro 3.8/80-205, but I only know it on film, it's an FD lens) and the other one is pretty good (Hoya HMC 3.5/25-42 Zoom&Macro, but the Tokina AT-X 2.8/24-40 is clearly better).


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hoya lenses were never sold in japanese market, only exported to
mainly Europe. The list is (from my friend) >

http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/sbko-hq/OTHERS/HOYA_HMC_LENS.html


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the 135/2.8 in K mount, rather poor lens Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I've got two, one is OK (Hoya HMC Macro 3.8/80-205, but I only know it on film, it's an FD lens)

My dad has this in Vivitar labeling and M42 mount...although I'm not sure about the macro part.

Big lens, pretty heavy...so-so image quality. I'd rather lug around the Tamron 19AH...


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
this message is outdated and deleted!

Last edited by Aykman on Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CarbonR wrote:
I have the 135/2.8 in K mount, rather poor lens Rolling Eyes


But have you an HMC lens or not?


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, it was a HMC version, it seems to be a 3/3 formula..


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FWIW, from Modern Photo tests in 1978:

Hoya 28mm f/2.8 HMC Wide-Auto. Min focuse .3m (12in). 7 element design. Slight overcorrection for spherical aberration, quite normal for these wide angle lenses, but no other faults, no axial color, nice round point image. Color transparencies... the clean contrast and sharpness of detail reminded us of the high quality older 28mm lenses from the most prestigious manufacturers. The resolution #s are 54 center at all apertures (60 at f/11) with edge going rom 43 to 54 lines/mm by f/8.

Hoya HMC Tele-Auto 135mm f/2.8. Min focus 1.5m. 4 elements. Slight overcorrected spherical, moderate green flare, some zonal aberration. f/5.6 is the critial stop. Slides show slight softness wide open. By f/4 center/edge excellent, corners sharpen up by f/8.

Hoya HMC Zoom 25-42 f/3.5
Min focus .8m, On axis slight red flare... Slides show off axis hint of softness at f/3.5,... resolution shows 'excellent' at all focal lengths in the center, getting 68 lpmm at f/5.6-f/8 at 25mm and 32, 60lpmm at 42. Edges hold up pretty well to, and this is one of the few lenses that seems to get even a medium in the contrast tests.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aykman wrote:
Hi,

...

3) The quality of the Hoya HMC lenses were very good.......the Zooms are like Komura Zooms very good........I would say the same league as Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron.
...

4) 135mm and 200mm were tested in germany between 1977-1980 and the results were good slightly under the 1st Class brands like Canon, Nikon, Minolta MD and pentax. The Zooms were really good and compete with the 1st class brands.


Hoya lenses are rare and some older ones are only single coated.....the multicoated version are very good.

...


Why the opinion on this len are so different?

Very good vs very bad. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alelinuxbsd wrote:


Why the opinion on this len are so different?

Very good vs very bad. Rolling Eyes


Well, there are several reasons. Firstly,we all make our own judgements based on what we've had ourselves. Secondly, sometimes we make judgements on the basis of what we've read or been told. But most importantly - though sadly - the quality of lenses always did (and still does) vary from time to time and from model to model, even from the same maker.

Between the 60s and the 90s, lens selling was a highly competitive business and the chief motivator for makers and vendors (who were often not the same people) was profit. Leitz, Nikon and Zeiss and may have checked every lens, but the high volume makers did not budget for a large inspection department and relied on automated machinery producing standardised components which would fit together reliably enough to satisfy the demands of what was then essentially an uncritical market.

Machine tools weren't checked that often, and tolerances could run right up to, or even beyond, the limits specified in the design before adjustments were made. That's why individual lenses vary even when coming from the same maker.

It may be hard to admit, but the name on the relatively inexpensive Japanese lenses is not really any guarantee of quality. Sometimes we get a lens which is superb, usuallywe have one which works very well, and - relatively rarely - we get a really, really bad one. And many of us will tell you that we've had rotten ones with the most respected names on them !


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've already posted a test between 6 135mm lenses (one zoom lens, 5 primes) :
(click to get 2000x2000 version, all are 100% crops)


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CarbonR wrote:
I've already posted a test between 6 135mm lenses (one zoom lens, 5 primes) :


Er, the zoom looks to be doing quite well ...


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me it's a surprise that the Hoya HMC lenses were so good. Here were badly considered, and very cheap in the 80's. The same happened with the mamiya lenses and cams.

Till just a short time back, they were give free with the used cam to sell.

It seems to me that I lost something. Confused

Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The test shows the Hoya images brighter. I would be interested in seeing the test as a level playing field.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My opinion for the 50-200 : it's a zoom (yes, indeed !), at approximatively middle range, so at his best compromises. At extreme focal lenghts, it would be not s good as this Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CarbonR I think in your test is possible understand well how good is the multi coating of smc compared with other lenses given the situation of the object.



This is the situation after apply a High Pass Filter and play with the color level in Gimp.

Clear isn't as good as the takumar but i think now is a little more better then before.




At f/4 the result are similar at the takumar super f/2.5 probably because this model has a less effective coated.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
The test shows the Hoya images brighter.


Are you sure? More flare, certainly. I think my money's on the zoom ... unless it's the recent AF one which gets such lousy reviews, in which case it can't be any good - Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
The test shows the Hoya images brighter. I would be interested in seeing the test as a level playing field.

The shutter speeds were not fixed, that explain the exposure differences Neutral


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
***Er, the zoom looks to be doing quite well***

Which is more reason to test your own lenses out in practice and not believe everything written on a bit of paper.
I've done quite a few tests comparing my Kiron 80-200 f4 to a Canon 200mm prime f4 and at 200mm the Kiron is slightly better for sharpness. So why carry my Canon 200mm around when a zoom is more versatile.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i have one! Hoya HMC 400mm f5.6 any idea with this lens?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a 70-260 that is not bad, made by Tokina and I have a 200mm which is very sharp but has quite bad CA wide open and I'm note sure who made it.

At least one of their zooms is made by Ozone.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I still have a Hoya MHC 28/2.8 (Konica mount) in my possession, but not for long. In about an hour I will ship it to its new owner in Kazakhstan, along with a K/AR-mount Kenko KFT 3x TC. I have no idea of their optical quality, having had no camera upon which to test them. I hope the new owner likes them. Shocked

Last edited by RioRico on Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2