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

Konica Hexanon 135mm f/2.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:02 am    Post subject: Konica Hexanon 135mm f/2.5 Reply with quote
This seems to be a rare lens. Not much info about it, even on this forum there are only a few (but very great!!) examples topics with and about the f/2.5 version.

There aren't even a lot on the bay, so i wondered : is this really as uncommon/rare/valuable as it seems?

It's obvious that it is a great lens, i have seen some stunning examples. And now i have been offered one, and my GAS tells me to fetch it...... Wink

What do you think?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
what have they been closing for on ebay?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just these 3:
http://www.ebay.com/csc/i.html?_sadis=200&_ipg=50&LH_SALE_CURRENCY=0&site=ebay.com&_sacat=See-All-Categories&_samihi=&_samilow=&_fpos=Postcode&_udhi=&_oexkw=&_udlo=&_adv=1&_sop=12&_dmd=1&LH_Complete=1&_okw=sonnar&_nkw=konica+2.5+135&LH_PrefLoc=2


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Under a hundred seems like a steal. The smc pentax 135/2.5 sells for $250 or more.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I'm a Hexanon fan but it's only a 135mm lens and do you need F2.5 Question as there are plenty of cheaper 135mms for sale.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Get the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's a stunning lens and cheap.

I'd post some samples, but they are on my old, broken PC.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Get the Hexanon 3.2/135, it's a stunning lens and cheap.

I'd post some samples, but they are on my old, broken PC.

yeah, but that one is 2/3 stop slower and how much cheaper can it be if the f2.5
version is under a hundred dollars.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
2/3rds of a stop is pretty irrelevant in most situations. You can find them for under 50 bucks, I've seen them for less than 20, people don't realise what a great lens it is and the 3.2 max aperture doesn't attract the ultra-fast idiots.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-Hexanon-AR-135mm-F3-2-/261251510086?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3cd3cdaf46

It's in the UK, but if he won't send it to Holland, I'll happily relay it.

I once tested all my 135s in direct comparison and the 3.2/135 came out as equal best with the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
2/3rds of a stop is pretty irrelevant in most situations. You can find them for under 50 bucks, I've seen them for less than 20, people don't realise what a great lens it is and the 3.2 max aperture doesn't attract the ultra-fast idiots.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-Hexanon-AR-135mm-F3-2-/261251510086?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3cd3cdaf46

It's in the UK, but if he won't send it to Holland, I'll happily relay it.

I once tested all my 135s in direct comparison and the 3.2/135 came out as equal best with the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135.


Also if you did need to use a 135mm WO....you could start a thread "What's a very good 135mm f2.5 to f2.8 to use WO at a reasonable price" .


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why restrict it to f2.5-2.8? That would preclude a lot of the best 135s.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Why restrict it to f2.5-2.8? That would preclude a lot of the best 135s.



Well the OP wants a F2.5 and a f2.8 is close, so can be considered.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Take it I bought too with all others Laughing Hexanons are cheap these days and excellent, 2.5 has largest diameter from all good as than others even wide open.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found the lens to be quit soft at 2.5f. Maybe it's my copy.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well... i have the 3.5 version. So this 2.5 seems more interesting than a 3.2 version.

Which of the two is "the better" one will be a matter of personal taste i guess... i'd like a 135 that is sharp from wide open, i like my Meyer 2.8/135, but it's not really sharp at f/2.8..... from examples i have seen from the Hexanon f/2.5: it is.

But according to asterinex that is not always the truth.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My copy of the 3.2 is so sharp wide open at close distance it can slice your eyeballs.

I'll try to find the 100% crop I posted of a bee on a flower.

I have three copies of the 3.5, the early chrome band, the late one with rubber grip and the Hexar, the early one is the best and is sharp wide open, but not as much so as the 3.2.

I haven't had the 2.5, I am happy with the 3.2 so never hunted the 2.5 down.

This thread discusses the various Konica 135s:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=51174

The consensus was that the 3.2 was the sharpest and best all-round, but the 2.5 has it's merits too, so the choice between them is dependent on your own tastes and what you want to shoot with the lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found some samples I posted a while back from my 3.2:

Quote:
Nikonshooter wrote:
I might have to let my 135mm 3.2 go since I can't use it on a Nikon body. Too bad because it sounds like a great lens. Sad


It is a great lens. Maybe grab a Konica body and shoot some film with it?

On NEX-3:








PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Well... i have the 3.5 version. So this 2.5 seems more interesting than a 3.2 version.

Which of the two is "the better" one will be a matter of personal taste i guess... i'd like a 135 that is sharp from wide open, i like my Meyer 2.8/135, but it's not really sharp at f/2.8..... from examples i have seen from the Hexanon f/2.5: it is.

But according to asterinex that is not always the truth.


One note about the meyer/pentacon 2.8 135: it is actually pretty sharp wide open, in my experience, but extremely difficult to nail the perfect focus - I don't know why, it must be the way focused areas degrade into oof ones - but when it happens it is really sharp.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shoot wide open usually silly, one stop down and much easier to get sharp , usefull shoot, perhaps this is main benefit from 2.5 lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Well... i have the 3.5 version. So this 2.5 seems more interesting than a 3.2 version.

Which of the two is "the better" one will be a matter of personal taste i guess... i'd like a 135 that is sharp from wide open, i like my Meyer 2.8/135, but it's not really sharp at f/2.8..... from examples i have seen from the Hexanon f/2.5: it is.

But according to asterinex that is not always the truth.


One note about the meyer/pentacon 2.8 135: it is actually pretty sharp wide open, in my experience, but extremely difficult to nail the perfect focus - I don't know why, it must be the way focused areas degrade into oof ones - but when it happens it is really sharp.


I've had 5 or 6 Meyer/Pentacon 2.8/135s, I had on copy that was very sharp wide open, it was a late model M42 one, none of the other copies could match it wide open, but once closed to f4, they all became pretty much the same.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


I've had 5 or 6 Meyer/Pentacon 2.8/135s, I had on copy that was very sharp wide open, it was a late model M42 one, none of the other copies could match it wide open, but once closed to f4, they all became pretty much the same.



I have had 3: a meyer zebra, a pentacon preset, and a later pentacon electric one - that turned out to be the sharpest of all.
Anyway, I almost never shoot it wide open, dof is already thin enough for me in most situations at f4.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How about the Tamron 135/2.5? I think the Adaptall 2 system does include Konica AR so if you need to have a Konica AR mount lens this is an alternative. Well if the Konica 135/2.5 is really under $100 then no hesitation needed, but if not, the Tamron is a good choice as well. Curious to see a comparison between the two.

The Vivitar 135/2.3 does have Konica AR mount as well, but not sure about the market price for that specific mount, I know in Nikon is expensive obviously.

I haven't tried the Konica 135/2.5 but I do have the Vivitar 135/2.3 currently and have owned a Konica 135/3.2 for short period of time. Imho the Konica is more tolerable and forgiving than the Vivitar, it's easy to get objects sharp even at wide open aperture and very sharp when stopped down, I would guess the Konica 135/2.5 have similar traits as well? Even a person like me with terrible focusing skills can get (at least to me) very satisfying results because even if you misfocused a bit the object is still sharp enough when resized. The Vivitar is sharp as well but the DOF is so thin it's very difficult to get an object in focus especially when the object is moving, not impossible, but require skills, patience, and good eyes. For me is difficult even stopping to F5.6.

I kept the Vivitar because it has close focusing capability which the Hexanon lacks, but I start to miss my Konica 135/3.2 now. But well imo the Vivitar is a more difficult lens to use which gives me more room to learn and improve, so it's all good Smile.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not about the mount. I have several adapters for the NEX, and many film bodies to choose from if i want to use it with film.

Well, i guess i should give it a shot. It's not the most common 135 obviously, so from that point of view it becomes some kind of interesting to see what i can do with it. (and post results of course!)


b.t.w. : i cannot remember ever having seen bad examples from a Konica lens! The ones in this topic prove that again!


PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had Tamron 135mm f2.5 also, nice lens but step behind Konicas.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1