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

Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses Reply with quote
Hi,

First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here Smile

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


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


Yes, they work fine on sony a7 series.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses Reply with quote
Nightjar wrote:
Hi,

First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here Smile

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.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Wink

Just being a little cheeky - welcome to the community Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Wink

Just being a little cheeky - welcome to the community Very Happy


Of course I already googled it and read most of the articles popping up Wink
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


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PS: is there an optical difference between the EE and the AE Version?

Cheers


PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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

Last edited by konicamera on Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:27 am    Post subject: Re: Some Questions about Konica AR Lenses Reply with quote
Nightjar wrote:
Hi,

First of all, hi, I'm new here...but I gueass I'll be spending a lot of time here Smile

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
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1