View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Nightjar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:36 pm Post subject: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses |
|
|
Nightjar wrote:
Hi,
First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here
It seems to me that Konica are some pretty fine lenses for a reasonable price. I wanted to invest in contax
lenses, but I had some unfurtunate deals and they are still quite expensive.
Now my first question is: are Konica Hexanon AR lenses adaptable on DSLR Full Frame Cameras like the 5D Mark II/III etc.?
According to other forums they seem to be adaptable on Nex FF cameras, but the are mirrorless
Now I have questions about two lenses:
1.) It was hard to find a lot of samples of the 35-100 2.8 varfocal. How is the picture quality? Is it sharp? Nice micro contrast? And also:
could it be adapted on a 5D? (I know its heavy ut IQ counts for me)
2.) There seem to be several versions of the 80-200. The earlier is f.3.5 the UC is f.4 --> how can they be compared
imagewise? I saw some pretty awsome samples of the 80-200 UC. Is the AR 3.5 equally nice?
I'd apreciate you help, samples and advice
Best
Nightjar |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
Hi Nightjar,
Welcome on board.
I have experience with few hexanons, but the ones I tried were all excellent: the 1.4/57 is one of my favourite 1.4 normals out there.
Sadly, afaik, they can't be adapted to any dslr I know, because of the flange focal distance of the konica mount, which is quite shorter than all the modern dslr mounts. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nightjar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nightjar wrote:
Thanks for your replay.
But they are adaptable on NEX FF right?
Has anyone tried this: http://www.lumiere-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=9670
Cheers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
A great reference for Konica lenses is http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html
I can't swear to this from experience but from what I have read the back flange distance for Konica Hexanon lenses is shorter than on other SLR cameras so they can't be adapted to anything other than mirrorless. Still, do your own research here, I can be wrong. (It has been known to happen)
I have a good range of Hexanon primes that I use on my Sony E mount cameras and there isn't a bad one in the bunch.
Steve _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
Yes, they work fine on sony a7 series. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
konicamera
Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 746 Location: Warsaw, Poland
Expire: 2014-06-14
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses |
|
|
konicamera wrote:
Nightjar wrote: |
Hi,
First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here
It seems to me that Konica are some pretty fine lenses for a reasonable price. I wanted to invest in contax
lenses, but I had some unfurtunate deals and they are still quite expensive.
Now my first question is: are Konica Hexanon AR lenses adaptable on DSLR Full Frame Cameras like the 5D Mark II/III etc.?
According to other forums they seem to be adaptable on Nex FF cameras, but the are mirrorless
Now I have questions about two lenses:
1.) It was hard to find a lot of samples of the 35-100 2.8 varfocal. How is the picture quality? Is it sharp? Nice micro contrast? And also:
could it be adapted on a 5D? (I know its heavy ut IQ counts for me)
2.) There seem to be several versions of the 80-200. The earlier is f.3.5 the UC is f.4 --> how can they be compared
imagewise? I saw some pretty awsome samples of the 80-200 UC. Is the AR 3.5 equally nice?
I'd apreciate you help, samples and advice
Best
Nightjar |
To add to what a couple of members already said, Hexanon AR lenses can’t be used on any DSLR because the K/AR mount has a much shorter film to flange distance (register) than any DSLR mount. The only exception is Olympus’ original 4/3 mount, which can take modified K/AR lenses but the tinkering involved makes it rather impractical. There are ways to physically mount Hexanon AR lenses on some DSLRs, but such a setup can only be used for macro or very short distance photography.
There are adapters that make it possible to use a Hexanon lens on, say, a Canon EOS camera, digital or otherwise, but they contain an optical element that compensates for the flange-to-film incompatibility. As a rule, such optical elements have a detrimental effect on overall IQ.
Luckily, given the right adapter, Hexanon lenses can be used on all mirrorless cameras that I know of, including the Sony E-mount FF cameras. The key word here is “mirrorless”.
Some background info about the lenses you mention:
The Hexanon 35-100/2.8 Varifocal seems to have been introduced in 1972 and may have been the fastest zooms of this FL at the time. Its varifocal design (in contrast to parafocal) made it very well corrected. This construction made for excellent IQ. Of course, zooms have evolved greatly since then and are generally much better today than in the early 1970s. They are also much lighter and easy to use. Personally, I see the Hexanon 35-100/2.8 Varifocal as something of collector’s item, especially as its weight makes using it rather impractical given the many other available options today.
There are four 80-200 Hexanon zooms. The f3.5 dates from 1967 to 1975 and was an excellent zoom in its day. The f4.0 UC dates from 1975 to 1982 and is the best of the four. As a UC lens, it has much better coatings and closer focusing ability than the previous model. The last two Hexanon 80-200 zooms were made for Konica by Tokina. In contrast to the first two, they are both push-pull zooms. The f4 was made from 1982 to 1986, and the f4.5 from 1986 t 1987. Both produce very good IQ, but they are no match for the UC, or even the f3.5. I’d definitely recommend the UC. If my database is any indication, as many of the UC model seem to have been made as of the other three types combined. They are common and can be bought for a song if you’re patient.
Good luck. _________________
L'homme s'ennuie du bien, cherche le mieux, trouve le mal, et s'y soummet, crainte du pire. - Duc François-Gaston de Lévis
While it is nice to be important, it's more important to be nice.
URL: www.konicafiles.com
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nightjar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nightjar wrote:
thank for all your replys.
If already visited buhlas blog. He gives nice information about the
lens, but when it comes to IQ, hes not very specific.
What makes the 35-100 2.8 interesting to me is, that its range from 35-100,
the constant 2.8 at that range and the fact that it doesn't extend while setting
the focal length (usful while filming).
I read from some users, that its like a prime lens concerning sharpness etc.?
I really would love to see more samples an talk to people who have shot a lot
with this lens. Maybe you know someone?
about the 80-200: have any of you had the chance to compare it to a contax 80-200? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RnR
Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 283 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
RnR wrote:
Nightjar wrote: |
I really would love to see more samples an talk to people who have shot a lot
with this lens. Maybe you know someone? |
Google and ye shall find... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=konica+35+100+site%3Amflenses.com
Just being a little cheeky - welcome to the community _________________ Currently shooting with Fuji X-E2s + Metabones Speedbooster + m42 and CY glass 💕
Cheers, Hasse |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nightjar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nightjar wrote:
RnR wrote: |
Nightjar wrote: |
I really would love to see more samples an talk to people who have shot a lot
with this lens. Maybe you know someone? |
Google and ye shall find... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=konica+35+100+site%3Amflenses.com
Just being a little cheeky - welcome to the community |
Of course I already googled it and read most of the articles popping up
But still...alot of sample and test charts can't be found. Would be amazing
to see in detail how sharp it is compared to others, how good it performs
wide open etc..
Cheers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nightjar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nightjar wrote:
PS: is there an optical difference between the EE and the AE Version?
Cheers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
konicamera
Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 746 Location: Warsaw, Poland
Expire: 2014-06-14
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
konicamera wrote:
Nightjar wrote: |
PS: is there an optical difference between the EE and the AE Version?
Cheers |
The optical evolution of Hexanon lenses over time bears absolutely no relation to when the EE to AE change took place. Most likely, this change was nothing more than a marketing ploy. So there are some differences, but the extent to which they coincide with whether a lens has the marking EE or AE on its aperture ring, is just that: A coincidence. For more on this issue: https://sites.google.com/site/tks0en/6-technical-questions/-automatic-exposure-setting _________________
L'homme s'ennuie du bien, cherche le mieux, trouve le mal, et s'y soummet, crainte du pire. - Duc François-Gaston de Lévis
While it is nice to be important, it's more important to be nice.
URL: www.konicafiles.com
Last edited by konicamera on Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4007 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Nightjar wrote: |
Hi,
First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here
It seems to me that Konica are some pretty fine lenses for a reasonable price. I wanted to invest in contax
lenses, but I had some unfurtunate deals and they are still quite expensive.
Now I have questions about two lenses:
1.) It was hard to find a lot of samples of the 35-100 2.8 varfocal. How is the picture quality? Is it sharp? Nice micro contrast? And also:
could it be adapted on a 5D? (I know its heavy ut IQ counts for me)
2.) There seem to be several versions of the 80-200. The earlier is f.3.5 the UC is f.4 --> how can they be compared
imagewise? I saw some pretty awsome samples of the 80-200 UC. Is the AR 3.5 equally nice?
I'd apreciate you help, samples and advice |
I recently tested the following Konica AR lenses on my A7II:
4/21 => very good, little distortion
3.5/28 (early 7L and later 5L) => very good, similar in performance to the corresponding Minolta MD 3.5/28mm
1.7/50 => similar to the corresponding Minolta 1.7/50; all Minolta 1.4/50 are slightly better
1.8/52
3.5/135 => very good; comparable to the earlier Minolta MC 3.5/135, but not as good as late Minolta MD-III 3.5/135
3.2/135 (focuses down to 1m!) => Excellent from corner to corner even at f3.2
4/200 Hexar => not very good; Minolta MC/MD 4/200 is much better (corners, CAs)
3.5/35-70 => heavy, big; similar performance as the late Minolta MD-III 3.5/35-70
4/35-70 => similar to Minolta MD 3.5/35-70 in size and optical construction, but slightly inferior in performance
2.8/35-100 Vari => my lens doesn't focus to infinity at the AR-to-Sony E adaptor (the primes do!); otherwise very good performance even at f2.8 (almost like a prime)
3.5/80-200 => quite low quality, similar to early Minolta 3.5/80-160mm zoom. NOT recommended unless you like "dreamy" low contrast images and missing corner resolution
4/80-200 UC => much better than the 3.5/80-200, similar to Minoilta MC 4.5/80-200, but clearly inferior to the Minolta MD 4/70-210mm
The 4/21mm and the 3.2/135mm have some advantages compared to the Minolta lenses (low distotion for the 4/21 and close focus for the 3.2/135). Otherwise the Konica primes are not superior to the corresponding Minoltas. The zooms (apart from the 35-100 Vari) are well built, buth otherwise sometimes quite disappointing.
"bulhla.de" is a very nice looking Konica site, but their lens ratings are somehow mysterious to me.
Stephan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|