Building a Konica kit around the Sony NEX

[Bille]

I was thinking about building a three lens kit for the Sony NEX including

Hexanon 21/2.8 (quite wide, super compact)
Hexanon 40/1.8 (pancake type fast standard)
Hexanon 135/2.5 (for the occasional tele shot at around 200mm equivalent)

Opinions?

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, drop the 1.8/40, it's mediocre compared to the 1.7/50 which is one of the sharpest and finest 'normal' lenses by any maker. The 1.4/57 and 1.4/50 are great lenses but the 1.7/50 is the best. Ignore the older 1.8/52 or the later plastic 1.8/50, they are good lenses but not in the same class as the 1.7/50, 1.4/57 and 1.4/50.

The older 4/21 is a superb lens so an alternative to the 2.8/21.

The 3.2/135 is better than the 3.5/135, I have several Konica 135s and the 3.2 is the best of the bunch, although I have yet to try the 2.5 which is hard to find. I have compared the 3.2/135 to several other top level 135mms and it really is a great lens that performs far better than it's cheap price tag suggests so for me, a no-brainer.

My favourite Hexanons are 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 3.2/135, those all get used on my NEX often and are in the top echelon imho.

[Bille]

[DR.JUAN]

[DR.JUAN]

[guardian]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Actually, in most cases, the later ones are less good. This is true of the 3.5/135 - the earlier ones are better, and very much true of the 3.5/28 - the earlier 7-element one is better than the later 5-element one. The late plastic 1.8/40, 1.8/50 and 35-70 kit zoom simply aren't upto the standards of all the earlier Hexanons, sadly. The 35-70 is small, light and plastic but inferior by a fair margin to the larger, heavier metal 35-70 it replaced. The 1.8/50 is a good lens, compares favourably to things like the Canon FD 1.8/50, but it outclassed by the earlier 1.7/50 Hexanon.

So unless smaller size and lighter weight are critically important to you, the later lenses are the least good ones to collect, the build quality is much less with use of plastics and the IQ falls a little below the very high standards the Hexanons maintained until the last days when the cheaper plastic stuff was introduced. Konica farmed out production of some lenses in the later years to Tokina, which includes the 1.8/50 and you can feel it's not a proper Konica, it lacks the solid metal feeling and overall impression of high quality.

[Bille]

[fermy]

Well, of the normal Konicas I have (also 50/1.7 and 40/1.8 ), I strongly prefer 50/1.4 followed by 50/1.7. So that should tell you that 40/1.8 is the weakest optically. 50/1.7 is slightly sharper, but 50/1.4 has gorgeous colors and overall rendering. http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-hexanon-50mm-f1-4-t48850.html.

On the other hand, 40mm is not available in other reasonably priced lines, so I don't think you should avoid having it. It's not like having a 4 lens kit instead of a 3-lens one, will make you broke.

FYI, I have both newer 135/3.2 and older 135/3.5 for sale (50/1.7 too btw). Out of these two 135/3.2 is slightly sharper, but 135/3.5 is really beautifully made. http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=48094. To be honest, I would go for older 135mm f3.5, it's a pleasure to hold and look at, in comparison 135/3.2 has more utilitarian and common styling. I don't think sharpness differences is big enough to lose any sleep over it.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'll second what fermy says, there isn't enough of a difference between the 3.2 and 3.5 to really matter. The 3.2 is contrastier though, but nothing to lose any sleep over.

[Attila]

[jimithing616]

I would have to +1 the 135 3.5

I dont have the 3.2 to compare it to, but I have some of the best 135 3.5's out there including the Canon FD, both SSC and nFD version, Minolta 135 3.5 in both MC and MD, and the 2.8 in MD, and the Pentax m42 125 3.5 and Pentax-M 135 3.5

out of all of these, I prefer the Hexanon's build quality to all of these, I would call it equal to the Minolta Mc ...

IQ wise I would say it is VERY VERY good. I am not a pixel peeper and I am fairly new at all of this, I am only 24 and been shooting for about a year... BUT I can tell you that it definitely doesn't feel any worse IQ wise than any of the lenses I listed to my untrained eye. Take that for whatever it is worth! haha

[Lightshow]

Jimi,
In the gear you list, you have "Canon FD 135 3.5 S.S.C", I think you may have a typo, as I don't think they made an SSC 135, just SC's.

I have to spend more time with my Konica's, all my test shots(On photo walks) were ok at best, the 57/1.4 being the best.

My best 135 is a Topcor R 135/3.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/8613733565/sizes/k/in/photostream/

[jimithing616]

Yep, a typo. I was at school when I typed those. No lenses in front of me. Nice catch

Anyway, You are correct... there is no SSC version of the 135 3.5 in breech mount, although I do in fact have a 135 3.5 "SSC" technically because the nFD 135 3.5 is in fact an "SSC" lens although it does not have the red marking.

In fact all the nFD 135 lenses would be "SSC" lenses, unmarked of course.

[Bille]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Don't own a 2.5, so can't say, I doubt it is better, just faster and heavier.

[TrueLoveOne]

Another member who has discovered Konica lenses! (Yes, me too!)
I ran into an almost brandnew set a while ago. It contained the FS-1, and 3 lenses: 3.5/28, 1.8/40 and 3.5/135.

So far i have just used them with film, in the FS-1 body, and they all feel great! Results are very nice as well!

Still haven't ordered an adapter for my NEX, but i will very soon! I am also watching local internet sources for some more of these fine lenses, i guess it's grab 'em while they are still very affordable!

Just judging from example shots from many forum members here has to convince anybody that these are good lenses!

This is the set i have: http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-fs-1-t57329,highlight,%2Bkonica.html

And here some results: http://forum.mflenses.com/my-konica-hexanon-experiment-t57579,highlight,%2Bkonica.html

[Bille]

[Bille]

Hex 40/1.8, two quick shots at f2.8




Will add samples from the 21/2.8 and 135/2.5 when I have them here for testing.