Konica Hexanon AR 200 f3.5 v's Vivitar Series 1 200mm f3

[DigiChromeEd]

Hi
Has anyone ever compared these two lenses side by side?
The Vivitar has a cult following but in reality is it really any better than other fast 200's?
_________________

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have the Hexanon, a late MC one, the third copy I've had - both earlier ones went to a collector as they were mint, like new. The Nexanon is big and heavy for a 200 but it's a superb lens, the best 200 for 35mm format I've tried, and imho slightly better than the Zeiss Jena 2.8/180.

That said, the best 200mm I own is the Bronica Zenzanon-S 4.5/200, another big heavy beast but stunning on my Sony a850.

If you want a critically sharp, CA free 200-ish lens for not much cash, look for a process lens, they are a bit slow, 9/210mm is made by a few makers, but one of those on some bellows is sharper than your sensor can resolve and they are fully apochromatic. I have a few, Schneider G-Claron 9/210, Rodenstock APO-Gerogon 9/210, plus some older ones like a Wray APO Lustrar.

[TrueLoveOne]

I used to have them both. Sold the Vivitar. It never crossed my mind to do a direct comparison, usually not my cup-o-tea do to side by side tests as it simply demands too much time! Wish i had the time to do it though....

The Hexanon is really excellent, can't find any samples this quick, but i remember it really impressed me!

Here's a few samples i made with the Vivitar 3.0/200 : http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-series-1-200mm-f-3-0-m42-t75070,highlight,%2Bvivitar.html

Cheers, René.

[woodrim]

I was getting curious about the Hexanon, but after finding more information on the Hexanon I realized how long the minimum focus distance was, so ditched the idea. I think my Series 1 is less than half the distance. There is so much benefit from the close focus for flowers, butterflies, etc. and it helps blow out the backgrounds more.