Hexanon 40/1.8 AR -- Hood? Alternate body?

Trius

Trius

Waiting on Maitani
Local time
1:51 AM
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,132
Location
Rochester, NY & Toronto area
View My Gallery
A great big shout-out to FrankS, who supplied me with a Hexanon AR 40/1.8 (conveniently attached to a Konica FS-1 body 😀 ) which I think is stupendous:

​

3998734926_3d907be011.jpg

​


(Large size here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3998734926_3d907be011_b.jpg)

[Technical detail: Ilford PanF+, Rodinal 1:100 19 min 20C]

So this is my new favourite lens .... not a Zuiko. GULP, forgive me Father Maitani, I have sinned.

Filter thread is 55mm ... I'm not sure if I really need a hood, but I haven't shot contre jour yet. I've searched the evil bay, but haven't found a Konica original hood. Any ideas? I could go for a 3rd party, but woud really prefer the original.

Also, I've investigated other Konica AR-mount bodies. The FS-1 works well enough, but if (when?) the electronics go, it's a doorstop. I am thinking about a purely mechanical body, despite the larger size of Autoreflex models. Logically, the larger bodies of the Autoreflex models run counter to the pancake profile of the 40, but ...

What say ye?
 
You don't need a hood. In 5,000+ pictures with my 40/1.8, I've never had flare ruin one (at least that I can remember). The original hood is round, is shared with the 85/1.8, and is very hard to find.
 
joe: I'm not concerned about load with this particular kit. The FS-1 has an integrated motor drive, so it's not a stealth/street kit anyway.

Dante: Thanks for that ... I'll either go sans hood or buy something like a Heavystar normal/standard hood, serving as protection.
 
Well...

The Autoreflex bodies were well-made (the T4 and TC don't offer as solid a feel as the T3 and earlier models, yet even those were still reliable). But, yeah, the things were little noisemakers. I still think seeking out a nice FT-1 is the serious ticket, and somewhat quieter to boot.

And, yeah, that 40...ain't it the shizzle? Better hope some wily craftsperson with too much time on his/her hands doesn't decide to make µ-4/3 AR adapter...


- Barrett
 
Trius said:
Also, I've investigated other Konica AR-mount bodies. The FS-1 works well enough, but if (when?) the electronics go, it's a doorstop. I am thinking about a purely mechanical body, despite the larger size of Autoreflex models. Logically, the larger bodies of the Autoreflex models run counter to the pancake profile of the 40, but ...​



What say ye?
Click to expand...

The T4 is my favorite Konica Body. Has some quirks...they are often found with a dead meter. But are 100% mechanical, so with a hand held meter, your good to go.

Also watch out for a damaged prism. The glass used in the T4 prism was soft and tended to develop problems if left in extreme heat (like in a parked car).

The Shutter in the T4 sounds like it'll break for sure, the next shot. But they are actually very reliable and once you get used to the weird sound. You'll like it.

The T3's are wonderful cameras, too. Built like a tank. Sound better and can double as an camp hammer if you forget yours.

I liked the "S" version of the T3 (split image focus screen) but they are far less common than the plain ground glass (w/frenel) models. 100% mechanical, battery is only for the meter.

I have a nice T3 that I bought from Greg Weber, has had the battery converted to use modern 1.5 volt silver batts. And that works a lot better than the 1.4 volt zinc-air batteries.

So, all of the "T" models, T, T2 and T3 (T2 says "T" but is identified by the addition of a shutter lock surrounding the release) TC and T4 are all 100% mechanical, and all (except the TC) are known to be very reliable.

The FT-1 was the cadilliac of the Konica bodies. It's REALLY nice, but lacks a DOF preview lever. A good working FT-1 would please you, I am sure. The FT-1 is not 100% mechanical, but is scads better made than the FS-1.

I have lot's of Konica glass and have been a dedicated Konica user for many years. The glass is fantastic. Better than all the rest. You just have to 'put up' with the somewhat klunky Konica bodies to use the great glass.

I have owned most of the lenses avail, all were great, except for the 35mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.5. All others....just superb. I would be surprised if you found any others that didn't please, as the quality control on the Hexanon was really good.

Some of the best are:

21mm f2.8
40mm f1.8
50mm f1.7
85mm f1.8
100mm f2.8
135mm f3.2
200mm f3.5

Oh and the 28mm f3.5 is very common, very cheap to obtain and very good!

Cheers, and enjoy!!
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the flood of information!

I think I may seek out a T3. As I said, noise isn't that big a deal for me for this particular lens. However ...

It occurs to me that if the Hexanons can be adapted to 4/3 (I've read the explanations on websites), they can be adapted to OM as well. Now that would be da bomb.

I also know where I can possibly get a 21/2.8, which is very tempting.

Edit: The Ft-1, I really don't want another electronic body, but the lack of DOF preview is even more of a minus.
 
Last edited:
Another body question ... Are all Konica bodies with AE shutter priority? Honestly, I prefer aperture priority. Having only shutter priority is a design "flaw", IMO. I realize that's personal prefernce.
 
Trius said:
Another body question ... Are all Konica bodies with AE shutter priority? Honestly, I prefer aperture priority. Having only shutter priority is a design "flaw", IMO. I realize that's personal prefernce.
Click to expand...

Yep, all were shutter priority.

The FT-1 was the only body with easy exposure compensation.

The T3 and T4 are the only two bodies that had multiple exposure capability.

None had aperture priority and yes, it's a shame.

But the good news is that the metering they do have is very accurate.
 
Trius said:
Thanks everyone for the flood of information!

I think I may seek out a T3. As I said, noise isn't that big a deal for me for this particular lens. However ...

It occurs to me that if the Hexanons can be adapted to 4/3 (I've read the explanations on websites), they can be adapted to OM as well. Now that would be da bomb.

I also know where I can possibly get a 21/2.8, which is very tempting.

Edit: The Ft-1, I really don't want another electronic body, but the lack of DOF preview is even more of a minus.
Click to expand...

Earl, the T3 is big and heavy, personally I like the T4 much better. It's small and very well built (not "plasticky" at all). I use it in manual mode all the time.

Oh, and another suggestion, look for Hexanon AR 35/2. 😀
 
Trius said:
But Will, I was counting on the T3 to drive in tent stakes on camping trips.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, we OM users need one for such occasions, don't we?

For me it's the Minolta XE-7. That thing can drive tent pegs and acts like a boat anchor also. 😀
 
I agree that the FT-1 is a desirable camera but in case of an electronical defect you can throw it away. No spare parts available. Same thing with the FS-1. I bought about 5 or 6 bodies until I had one that works sufficiently. The old T3 tanks however work very reliable and can be repaired still today.

Regarding the lens hood I read that the 1,8/40 shared the lens hood even with the 1,8/50 and the 1,8/85 as written before.
 
i tried out my 57mm 1.4 this am. great lens but a little to long for me. I prefer the 50mm 1.7 or even more so hte 40mm 1.8
If anyone wants to make me an offer for the 57mm 1.4 let me know. Too nice to go unused. I'll trade for film too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom