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

Zoom-Hexanon AR 28-135 mm F4-4.6
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:46 pm    Post subject: Zoom-Hexanon AR 28-135 mm F4-4.6 Reply with quote
Hi folks

I just picked this lens up as part of a job lot and can't find much info about it:

Zoom-Hexanon AR 28-135 mm F4-4.6

Angle of view: 75°-18°
Construction: 18 elements in 12 groups
Aperture: AE / 22-26
Min focus: 0.5-1.5 m (1ft 711/16"-4ft 11")
Filter Thread: 67 mm*
Length: 114 mm (42/3")
Weight: 800 g 1 lb 121/4 oz)

All I can find with a google search is some posts about it being a Tokina AT-X lens rebadged. It is a big and heavy lens for it's focal length and 18 elements in 12 groups sounds like a lot!

Anyone know anything about this lens?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found this picture of the lens in Tokina guise:



And this pic of the optical construction:



PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Haven't seen nor owned one. Only limited reference here:

http://cybernetdenis.net/hexanon/28135.jpg
http://cybernetdenis.net/lenses.htm

http://www.konica-collector.com/lenses_new_bayonet.htm

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/HexanonUebersicht.html


PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info, I will shoot some samples with the lens shortly.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If it is a Tokina ATX type lens you have yourself a great find


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry Ian to say that, but what did you expect to get from such a lens (or similar from other brands) ? This is a midrange zoom and not a specialized tele prime or a spective or something else. So distance shots of perhaps 500-1000 meters over a bay, then cropping and then to be unsatisfried because it is too soft is the wrong conclusion IMHO.

Try it out when the weather is good for distances between 10 and 50 meters with apertures between 5,6 and 8 and you will see results totally different from the ones above.l

Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see your point Rolf but the results I got were so soft I really find them surprisingly awful. I will try again with this lens and chose other subjects.

BTW, that's lake Coniston, famous for Donald Campbell's ill-fated Bluebird world speed record attempts.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some observations:

1. Shooting at ISO 1600 for landscapes, and then cropping to 100% is not sensible with this or any crop camera. The image will look noisy and lack detail.
2. Shooting landscapes in poor light and cropping to 100% generally doesn't work well anyway (something to do with the atmosphere?)
3. Your shots look like they've focused past infinity (we've had that issue before with your ML 28/2.Cool
4. The lens could be crap, too.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thankyou Graham, it is for that kind of advice that I posted the pics, I am sure the lens can't be as bad as I've made it look.

I think #3 could be a big part of the softness, with my 1.8/50, 1.7/50 and 3.5/28 Hexanons, infinity is where it is marked on the barrel with my AR-NEX adapter, I have a suspicion with this 28-135, infinity is slightly off from where it's marked.

I noticed that the shots taken at the long end of the zoom range were softer than the ones at the short end. I need to make sure I've got it in focus again after zooming, looks like it isn't parfocal.

I'll try a few shots this afternoon, but there's no more sunlight today than there was yesterday.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Horrible dark day today but I did manage some test shots. I discovered that this lens is very much varifocal and at no point does it seem to be at it's sharpest at infinity, it also focuses a fair way past the infinity mark. This is why yesterday's shots were so soft. I found it quite tricky to focus this lens but careful use of 14x focus assist on the NEX and I think I nailed it.

All these were at f8, first at 28mm setting, second at 70mm setting, third at 135mm setting, looks pretty sharp and I can't see any CA, for a zoom lens I think this is pretty good, of course I need to test it on a better day with more light so I can use lower ISO settings, but to my eyes, I think this lens is a good one.








PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolf wrote:
Sorry Ian to say that, but what did you expect to get from such a lens (or similar from other brands) ? This is a midrange zoom and not a specialized tele prime or a spective or something else. So distance shots of perhaps 500-1000 meters over a bay, then cropping and then to be unsatisfried because it is too soft is the wrong conclusion IMHO.

Try it out when the weather is good for distances between 10 and 50 meters with apertures between 5,6 and 8 and you will see results totally different from the ones above.l

Wink


+10


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, those shots look MUCH better to me Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Ian, those shots look MUCH better to me Smile


much better indeed...


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers, just proves it wasn't the lens at fault, but the monkey operating it!

Some more from this afternoon, I like this lens, will have to try it more as soon as we get some sunshine here.





PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing Laughing I never shoot in similar conditions, use less I rather run out when weather is good.
If you can't wait make a light tent setup and shoot some small objects with good light.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow the windmills look brill!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see your point Attila, but here where I live, this level of light can be 6 months of the year! I am just trying to work out how to shoot effectively in this type of situation, high ISO isn't the answer, but HDR can help a lot it seems. I'm nothing if not persistent and I will master it in the end with enough trial and error.

I'm not afraid of making mistakes along the way either, I consider it an integral part of the learning process.

One thing last two days have taught me that was very valuable - working with zoom lenses is different to working with primes in that the focus changes when you zoom with most of them so you have to keep refocusing, that was all that was wrong with yesterday's efforts - I didn't take into account the varifocal nature of this lens. Only zoom lenses I have more than the most fleeting experience of is TV camera ones and those are all parfocal - standard technique with them is to zoom right in to focus then pull back to frame up the shot. This is how I used this Zoom-Hexanon yesterday and the end result was softness due to mis-focus.

Thanks for the kind words about the windfarm shot, it was one of those 'right, place, right time' situations where I just happened to be there with my camera when the crack in the clouds was in the right place and the sun low enough in the sky to illuminate the horizon with that ethereal glow, nature made that picture, I just had to capture it, it's a 5-shot HDR image. Similar situation happened at Coniston yesterday with the light illuminating that tree by the lake, and that's also a good shot imho, just a shame it's slightly out of focus and therefore pretty soft.

I have a mint Tamron 103A to test tomorrow, I won't make the same focusing mistakes with that, lesson learned!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian I did delete your first shoots their was awful and ruin lens, your and finally forum reputation, please don't post anymore similar ones.

Last edited by Attila on Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, does that lighthouse tower really lean like that? I'm just curious. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the last pics, you began to get the best of the lens. Perhaps you have to know more about him.

Which is the range of the better apertures, the best distance to shot, all of them in each focal distance.

An old rule says:

With single coated lens, the better apertures are the penultimate and the antepenultimate ones.

And with the MC lenses, the second to fourth.

And in a lot of cases, it works.


Rino


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
An old rule says:

With single coated lens, the better apertures are the penultimate and the antepenultimate ones.

And with the MC lenses, the second to fourth.

And in a lot of cases, it works.


Rino

How true Rino. I was taught something similar many, many years ago - The best aperture of any lens is f8. The difference between good and bad quality lenses is how far you can go away from f8 and still be able to produce acceptable prints.

And another nice old rule is always use the slowest film you can and only use a faster one as a last resort after reaching the limits of shutter speed and aperture. In my younger days I shot all my pictures on Kodachrome II and the old PanF (both 25 ASA I think). Modern films and digital cameras make that look a bit silly now, but the rule still applies in principle.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Ian, does that lighthouse tower really lean like that? I'm just curious. Smile


Yes, it does, it's subsided over the years, look at this wide shot, the horizon is horizontal but the lighthouse is far from perpendicular to the horizontal!



It's actually the only remaining cast iron lighthouse in the UK I think, do a Google image search for 'Hodbarrow lighthouse' and you will get a ton of pictures of it.

This was what it looked like a few years ago, it was fully restored but has been vandalised since:



Subsidence was always a big problem here, the lighthouse stands at the mid point of the new sea wall that was built to replace the old one which had this unfortunate subsidence issue a century ago:



If you take note of the distance the centre of the wall has fallen then look at this picture I took of the lagoon that is there today you can see it subsided a bloody long way and the lagoon is very deep as a result.



Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:19 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
In the last pics, you began to get the best of the lens. Perhaps you have to know more about him.


Yes, I treated it in the same way I treat my primes and failed, so I have learnt a valuable lesson on the use of zoom lenses. I do think with every lens, you can't get the best from it immediately (in most cases) and need to learn it's characteristics, strengths and weaknesses before you can really exploit it's abilities to the fullest.

BTW, seeing as I've discovered the highly varifocal nature of this lens, can anyone name some good zoom lenses that are parfocal? Just wondering as it would be handy to have a parfocal lens for video shooting.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
peterqd wrote:
Ian, does that lighthouse tower really lean like that? I'm just curious. Smile


Yes, it does, it's subsided over the years, it's actually the only remaining cast iron lighthouse in the UK I think.

Look at this wide shot, the horizon is horizontal but the lighthouse is far from perpendicular to the horizontal!]


Yes I could see that, that's why I asked.

You see that's my job (or rather it was). I was involved in conservation and restoration of old buildings - I've worked on Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, Osterley House, Lincoln Cathedral, many ancient Oxford colleges, and countless old pubs and churches, etc etc. I once collaborated on a project with a Structural Engineer who had been working for many years on stabilising the leaning tower at Pisa. He showed me photographs and drawings of the extensive underpinning work carried out, not to straighten it but just to stop it leaning any further. Do you know if any similar work has been done to this lighthouse? Where is it exactly?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
I once collaborated on a project with a Structural Engineer who had been working for many years on stabilising the leaning tower at Pisa. He showed me photographs and drawings of the extensive underpinning work carried out, not to straighten it but just to stop it leaning any further. ?


Did you know that in the last years, it did positively straighten?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2