| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
retrooptical
Joined: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Newport, WA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:26 pm Post subject: Konica Hexanon AR 100mm f2.8 EE tested |
 |
|
retrooptical wrote:
Admittedly we have a weakness for the rendering of 85-100mm portrait primes, however even in this fairly densely populated class this lens is a standout for very sharp images even at f2.8 trending towards razor sharp after f4, buttery smooth bokeh, and excellent neutral colors. We reviewed the second version of this lens an EE marked all black metal scalloped version with what appears to be the modern Hexanon multicoating judging by its deep purple color and lack of reflectivity vs. other EE marked primes in our inventory. Optical formula is unchanged between all versions.
Really an outstanding little lens which compares favorably with the Contax Zeiss Sonnar 100/3.5 or Topcon RE Auto Topcor 100/2.8 both of which are outstanding performers in their own right, albeit significantly more expensive than this well built little gem. Highly recommended badly underappreciated (undervalued really) portrait prime that competes well outside of its price class and deserves serious consideration against more expensive competitors if you are in the market for a compact 100mm prime as it performs about as well for substantially less money.
Tripod Stabilized Sony A7II
SteadyShot Off
NR Off
Lens Comp Off
ISO 200
5 Elements in 4 groups, more details can be found below:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e100_28.html
f2.8
f4
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
Pooch@f4
_________________
Retro Optical
Lens & Camera Restoration
Newport, WA 99156 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rigel
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 121
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rigel wrote:
I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ??  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
retrooptical
Joined: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Newport, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:28 pm Post subject: Post some samples! |
|
|
retrooptical wrote:
| Rigel wrote: |
| I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ?? |
Minolta can be really really nice glass, and with an F4 aperture I wouldn't be surprised if it performed better. Care to post a sample with 100% crop? I'd test it if I had one.
Based on previous experience it performs about as well as the CY Sonnar 100/3.5 and a little less well than the RE Auto Topcor 100/2.8.
_________________
Retro Optical
Lens & Camera Restoration
Newport, WA 99156 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 3439
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
| Rigel wrote: |
I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ?? Confused
|
If you have the 100mm 4.0 macro that is not surprising at all! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Posts: 1839
Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
| Rigel wrote: |
| I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ?? |
Well, i think you should not compare normal 100mm lenses with dedicated macro lenses. There is a big difference!
_________________
My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rigel
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 121
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rigel wrote:
| TrueLoveOne wrote: |
| Rigel wrote: |
| I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ?? |
Well, i think you should not compare normal 100mm lenses with dedicated macro lenses. There is a big difference! |
hmm .. I'm not even talking about "macro" just "being" regular 100mm and used as such ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Posts: 1839
Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
| Rigel wrote: |
| TrueLoveOne wrote: |
| Rigel wrote: |
| I'm confused here ... Looking at the pictures I'm under the impression that my Minolta 100mm f4.0 performs a lot better ?? |
Well, i think you should not compare normal 100mm lenses with dedicated macro lenses. There is a big difference! |
hmm .. I'm not even talking about "macro" just "being" regular 100mm and used as such ... |
Ok! You have the Rokkor-TC 4/100? Interesting, never seen one before!
_________________
My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rigel
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 121
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rigel wrote:
Hmm .. no not the TC Rokkor ..
The one I have is the one on the left on this reference page. (including the 1:1 extender)
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/100mm%20macro.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TeemÅ
Joined: 07 Apr 2016
Posts: 586
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
TeemÅ wrote:
Why discuss the F4 macro? Better to compare against Minolta 100/2.5 or 100/2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rigel
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 121
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rigel wrote:
| TeemÅ wrote: |
| Why discuss the F4 macro? Better to compare against Minolta 100/2.5 or 100/2. |
??? ... Why ? What would be the problem comparing it with the 100mm f4 macro ? It is a 100mm after all and it behaves as such, no ?
If my point is that I'm under the impression that the "macro" version is already performing better so why deviate to the 100mm f2.x ?
Making it look even worse ? LOL !  |
|
| 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
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
