Which Hexanons to look for?

[WolverineX]

as i gear up for buying Oly E-M5, i ordered adapters for nikon, minolta md , m42, canon fd lenses and also for konica ar lenses.
so far i don't have any konica lenses, so i'm interested to know which ones to look for.
locally i have opportunity to get following Hexanons : 40mm/1.8, 50mm/1.7, 135mm/3.2, 135mm/3.5 and 28mm/3.5

which one of these should i get and also which other Hexanons should i look for?

[rbelyell]

W, ive had pretty much every hex lens. for the money in general you cant do better. my absolute favorite on my ep2 (and im hoping my new omd), is the 57/1.4 followed by the 28/3.5 and the 40/1.8. the 24 is excellent, but more expensive. get yourself a tc-x or tc film cam for less than $50 and have some real fun with these. btw, i ended up selling all of my 10 lens hex collection, except for the 57/1.4. indoors low light its a killer. imo way better than any of the very good 50s.

btw, ive found that m39s and m mounts also do great on the olly m4/3s. good luck.
tony

[Excalibur]

Well I agree with rbelyell....... "for the money in general you cant do better". From your list they are all VG to excellent except the 135mm f3.5 IMO, as with my copy I find is just short of razor sharp.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have all five of those you can find locally and they are all very good. The 3.2/135 is better than the 3.5/135. The 1.7/50 is fantastic, I'd take that one. The 1.8/40 is very good and is much smaller than the 1.7/50. The 3.5/28 is a superb lens, the earlier all-metal EE version has 7 elements and is better than the later AE version with rubber focus grip.

If you're going to get a film body, the older ones are very well made, I particularly like my Autoreflex T, built like a tank, oozes quality. The FT-1 is very good too but many don't work, weak electronics. Attila's favourite Konica is the FC-1. I have a TC-X, it's horrible compared to the others, cheap and plastic, not made by Konica (Cosina made it I think) but does have the advantage it runs off a single AAA battery. With the older ones like the Autoreflexes, they need a button cell, originally a 1.35v mercury one. A modern 1.5v replacement does work, you just have to use the trick of setting the ISO a step lower (200 for 400 film for example) .

My favourite Hexanons are the 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, 1.8/50, 1.7/50, UC 45-100 zoom and UC 3.5/80-200 zoom.

The 1.8/50 is amazingly sharp wide open but I prefer the 1.7/50 for most subjects.

I directly compared the 3.2/135 to my Topcon 3.5/135, Pentacon 2.8/135 and Jupiter-11A 4/135. The Konica and Topcon were the best of that bunch and very close to each other in performance, the Topcor was ever so slightly sharper and had a little more microcontrast but it was very close, I reckon the Konica 3.2/135 is a great lens in it's own right, slightly warmer colours than the Topcor, similar to the Pentacon in colour warmth.

I have samples from all five of those lenses you can get locally if you want to see some.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Attila]

Take all usually they are not expensive lenses and good ones, if you have higher budget try to have premium lenses.

15mm , 21mm, 28mm f1.8 , 24mm, 85mm longer focal lenght are also very good 135mm, 200mm, 300mm etc

[Excalibur]

[WolverineX]

135mm/3.2 and 28mm (it's Hexar AE version of 28mm) are available separate
40mm and 135/3.5 are bundled together with konica fp-1 body
and
50mm is bundled with konica autoreflex t-4

[WolverineX]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have the Hexar 3.5/28, not tried it yet, I'll test it tomorrow for you, see how good it is.

I'd take the 3.2/135 for sure, it's a top lens.

On NEX-3:




I'd also take the AR T-4 with 1.7/50, very well made body and top lens.

1.7/50 on NEX-3:

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Excalibur]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, the Hexars were made by Tokina to Konica designs, the build quality matches upto Konica standards, the Hexar 3.5/135 is a good lens, as good as the Hexanon version, I will try the Hexar 28 tomorrow if it doesn't rain all day.

Hexar 3.5/135:

[aspen]

[Rolf]

for more information see here

www.buhla.de

I believe that the H* are no longer cheap as they were some month ago. Others read in foren like this too and the prices increased. 2.8/40 AR is a nice lens together with system cams - like a pancake.

Others - but you know this by yourself and these will be always the same - are much longer, heavier etc. and you will loose the advantage of a nice small and lightweight cam with maybe the quickest AF at the moment.

[WolverineX]

[eddieitman]

Personaly get the 40 1.8. A good copy is superb i have the early 135 3.5 and is excellent.
Have the 57mm f1.4 and thats an amazing lens so sharp wide open and very smooth bokeh.
As soon as my 4th 1.4 lens arrives the takumar 50mm 1.4 i will do a 4 lens shoot out with my fast 50s
Konica 57mm f1.4, takumar 50mm f1.4, minolta rokkor 50mm pg and minolta 58mm pf.
My advice inspect the 50 1.7 with led light as i have 2 both suffer from haze and inspected 5 others in shops also having haze maybe i have been unlucky but seems less well built than most others

[ramcewan]

stay away from the 52mm f1.8
the 50mm f1.8 is excellent
if you come across a Tokina or Hoya 80-200mm in Konica AR mount it is really sharp and works well on the olympus pen (not all zooms will)

the downside with the AR mount is it doubles the size of the pancake like 40mm or 50mm

for that reason I really love my Jupiter-8 in m39, it fits and looks really good on the pen cameras I am sure it will look even better on the OM-D

[Attila]

I though premium Hexanon SLR lenses, 15mm, 21mm f2.8 , 28mm f1.8 go around 500 USD , this is reason why I did call them premium lenses vs cheap 40mm f1.8 or others. Leica-M Hexanons are more expensive , but I doubt you will see visible difference vs these lenses.

[yinyangbt]

My favorite Hexanon is the splendid 24mm/2.8 . The 40/1.8 is good , a tad soft wide open , and my 50/1.7 is very sharp if stopped a little , but soft wide open .Maybe I have a bad copy .
The prices have rised these last two or three years .

[ramcewan]

[iangreenhalgh1]

The Konica 4/21 is my favourite lens. I paid a lot less than 200USD for it but if I had paid 200, I'd consider it more than worth every penny.

[Attila]

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

[fermy]

I'd get all of them if the price is right.

40mm is a bit worse optically than a good 50 (for example Hexanon 50/1.7), but it is a pancake and a bit of unusual focal length.

50mm/1.7 is a typical good 50. It's not exceptional (in the true sense of the word), but very, very good. If it were my only 50, I would be extremely happy with it. The downside is that earlier models are heavier than others similar lenses (e.g. Canon FDn 50/1.8 or Minolta MD 50/1.7), while later models have larger MFD and don't have half-stops.

My impressions of 135mm/f3.5 are here: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=48094 To summarize, even if there are lenses that are a bit sharper, this one is very good and a pleasure to use and own.

I don't have 135mm/f3.2, so no comments, but I've yet to see Konica that was a disaster.