What Other Hexanons Are This Good?

The Konica with 50/3.5 lens that my dad bought in Japan in 1950 is nice. Really nice. Collapsible lens. Small. Did I mention that it's nice? Leaf shutter makes a Leica sound like a howitzer.

Really nice.
 
I like the 38mm f2.8 Hexanon lens on a C35EF. It's an IR-AF camera from the seventies and the lens is pretty close to the Hexar AF lens. Very sharp, in a good working camera the focus is spot on.

These cameras can be had for 20-30 bucks, nobody looks for them.

I also shot the EE-matic (very good as well), but it leaves no control to the shooter, and a C35, which also is a great lens. Small pocketable camera, looks like a toy box camera nowadays.
 
The 85mm f1.8 is probably the sharpest.

I entered a local PPA contest once (in the mid eighties) for "medium format only" head and shoulder portraits, and won.

The image was taken with a Konica T3 and the 85mm f1.8

No one ever questioned if it was taken on medium format.

You HAVE to use a soft filter for people with it, unless your subject is extremely beautiful :)
 
I love the Konica slr system and have quit ea few of the lenses. The 15mm fisheye is awesome. I'm still looking for the expensive 28mm 1.8, and have always wondered if the 100mm is any good; I have the 85mm 1.8 and love it, too. However, my two FT-1's went bad on me, and now I use an FC-1 which is way nice. You can't go wrong.
 
When I switched from Konica to Nikon in the late 70's, I found Nikon lenses slightly disappointing compared to Konica. Only the 24mm Nikkor was as good or better than the Konica lens. The 50/1.7 and 85/1.8 Hexanons were the best.
 
From the "Can your zoom do this?" -department...


Hexanon UC AR 80-200/4 - wide open, of course.

Seriously if there's a single 80's zoom I'm keeping, it's this one. Unbelievably smooth background and excellent detail/contrast.

If I can get it converted to 4/3rd mount, it'll be a 160-400mm f/4 bokeh monster. :D
 
Glad somebody mentioned that UC zoom. I think just about all of the top AR Hexanons have been cited; I'll also list the 24/2.8, 35/2 and the inexpensive 135/3.2.
 
I agree that the 38/2.8 from the C35 series is great, and punches far above its weight.

Wayne: Leaf shutter? What mount?
 
shadowfox said:
From the "Can your zoom do this?" -department...


Hexanon UC AR 80-200/4 - wide open, of course.

Seriously if there's a single 80's zoom I'm keeping, it's this one. Unbelievably smooth background and excellent detail/contrast.

If I can get it converted to 4/3rd mount, it'll be a 160-400mm f/4 bokeh monster. :D
Click to expand...

Wow, looks as good as a canon 70-200 f4L, and that lens is decades more modern.
 
Before getting into rangefinders, Konica was my main camera. I have the 50 f1.7, 80-200 f4 UC Zoom, 57 f1.4 and 28 f3.5. All the lenses are sharp and have good rendition. The 28mm was a favorite.

But when I started using the Kiev with Jupiter lenses, and later, Leica and Voigtlander, I felt the Konica SLR lenses just didn't give that outstanding quality and feel that I got from the rangefinder lenses. The 28mm Hexanon AR was close though.
 
sooner, Hexanon 100/2.8 is a fine performer.

My favourite Hexanons are 28/3.5 first version with seven elements, 35/2.8, 35/2, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 100/2.8, 135/3.2, 200/3.5.
 
I'm not expecting SLR lens performance to be as good overall as RF. But SLR shooting does have its place for me.

I'm hoping the eBay seller in California who makes adapters for Hexanon -> 4/3 will respond to my email about an OM mount adapter.
 
sooner said:
I love the Konica slr system and have quit ea few of the lenses. The 15mm fisheye is awesome. I'm still looking for the expensive 28mm 1.8, and have always wondered if the 100mm is any good; I have the 85mm 1.8 and love it, too. However, my two FT-1's went bad on me, and now I use an FC-1 which is way nice. You can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, and after falling into a Konica 28/1.8, why is it so expensive and hard to find? I traded off my Mint Nikkor 28/2 AI'd lens after getting the Konica. Was it a low-production lens? (But bought a beater Nikkor-NC 28/2 with great glass for $100 later)
 
I have no idea why the 28 f/1.8 is so expensive, other than the obvious that it's a fine lens, one of the few "UC" lenses with the special coating. But the UC zoom mentioned here isn't that expensive. Maybe it was a limited run. I've often wondered if it's really 8 times better than the 28 f/3.5, 'cause it sells for about that much more.
 
I've seen it go for several times the cost of a Nikkor 28/2. Aside from the fact that the Konica is a "wee-bit better", the Nikkor 28/2 with an F2 body hanging off of it is typically less than the Konica.
 
Last edited:
Wayne: Thanks for the link.

I got an email from Tai Chung, who makes adapters for Konica. The flange distance for Konica is 40mm, the OM is 46mm, so no joy. A 4/3 body would work, but that's an expensive adapter!
 
Konica UC Hexanon 28mm 1.8

Konica UC Hexanon 28mm 1.8

Hi all,

The Hexanon 28/1.8 is one of five UC lenses introduced by Konica in 1976. It was manufactured until 1987, the year that Konica got out of the SLR business. It's not a terribly rare lens – examples show up on Ebay regularly. It's just a very good lens and those who have one usually hold on to it.

The reasons why it was and is so expensive are (there may be more):
1) According to Konica, UC stood for 'ultra close', 'ultra coating' and 'ultra compact'. The lens does focus quite close (0.25mm) and it has superior coatings that give it a slightly greenish hue. It is not very compact, however, being almost twice the size of Hexanon's regular 28mm lens.
2) It has an 8/8 construction, in contrast to the 7/7 construction of the Hexanon's 'normal' (f3.5) 28mm and 5/5 for the later compact version. One of those elements is a floating one – a high-price feature that was quite rare in the middle 70s and that allows for better correction and closer focus.
3) In addition to the above, it is a very bright lens for a 28mm.

I used a borrowed one for a short period in the 80s but I was never able to afford one. But if, like me, you're not a sharpness freak and you're a bit short on cash, I suggest you try the Kiron 28/2.0. It's just a hair darker, and an absolutely great lens.

Cheers

jj (in Warsaw)

PS The September 1976 and August 1979 issues of Popular Photography carry a review of this lens. If any of you know of other such reviews, I'd love to hear of them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom