Hexanon 200mm Comparison

[boatman]

I picked up a Hexanon 4/200mm lens a few weeks ago for a price I couldn't refuse. Then last week I won an eBay bid for the older, allegedly better, Hexanon 3.5/200. I'm planning only to keep one and sell the other. Which one?

I plan to do some shooting tests to see if there really is a significant optical difference, which may solve the question. But if it doesn't, the question will come down to which lens is easier to use and manually focuses better.

My question is, what is the best way to determine this? I've been thinking along the lines of just taking a bunch of photos with each lens and then comparing the number to blown shots due to poor focusing or camera shake and the lower score lens wins. But something a little less subjective would be better. Any suggestions?

[Attila]

I have both , f4 is smaller, lighter than f3.5. F4 was a budget lens from Konica.

Keep them both for a while shoot nice subjects with both not neighbor roof or bottle on table and when you have experience with both sell what you like less.

These lenses are inexpensive today I don't see point why not keep both at least for a while.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/konica/

[pat donnelly]

Subjective is BEST!

You are using the lens,so what suits you?

Close focus, portrait, flare, bokeh, lowest speed used successfully, say 1/10s or so, 20 shots each and as you say, the fewest shaken shots. Capture of a fast moving subject as a test of ease of focus.

For what subjects are you most going to use the lens? Lotsa shots of that?

Share the best of each?

Have fun!