Hexar AF with 90mm/2 Lens

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
10:18 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,571
Now why didn't Konica think about offering such a camera/lens combination, along with the wonderful 35mm/2 lens. Then I could have bought two Hexars for travel equipment. The Hexar body is light and the lens is wonderful. Need I say more? Each time I use the Hexar Silver, I marvel at its performance. It is my only AF camera, and when I want to be 100% sure I get tack sharp results even when not concentrating fully on the subject, it is the camera to use.
 
Precisely because of the scenario you mentioned. The 35mm lens is an all-around lens, but a camera with only a 90mm lens will be that, a second camera.

Another is that konica does not have a 90/2 lens. They have a 90/2.8.
 
ray_g said:
Precisely because of the scenario you mentioned. The 35mm lens is an all-around lens, but a camera with only a 90mm lens will be that, a second camera.

Another is that konica does not have a 90/2 lens. They have a 90/2.8.
Click to expand...

But don't you agree that having both, the 35 and the 90 lenses would be very useful? As for Konica not having a 90/2, they can always design one. :)
 
I appreciate where you are coming from, raid. But here are some more thoughts:

It would be useful for someone who already has a 35/2 hexar. Not for someone just looking to buy one camera.

Most people who want more than one lens will usually buy an interchangeable lens system.

Most people who want a 35/2 and a 90/2 will also want a superwide, a 50, and maybe something longer.

A fixed-lens camera with a 90/2 lens will be very bulky, especially as a travel camera.

I don't know if the konica AF system is accurate enough for a 90/2 lens.

Most people who will use a 90/2 for portraiture will prefer the framing accuracy and, in most cases, the focusing accuracy of an slr.
 
I don't know if you read MJ's SMP article on the best lens for a Leica. The 35mm is more of a 90% lens and the 90mm is more a 10% lens. I find that to be nearly true for myself as well. I don't think I would like to carry a (comparatively) big heavy expensive camera that I will use only 10% of the time during my travels. Much easier to carry a separate 90mm lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That being said, I did something similar on my last trip: M2 + 50 cron, Hexar AF, 90mm lens and Ricoh GR1 for 28mm.
 
ray_g said:
That being said, I did something similar on my last trip: M2 + 50 cron, Hexar AF, 90mm lens and Ricoh GR1 for 28mm.
Click to expand...


ray, how did you find shooting with that kit?
i think it would drive me nuts, honestly & sincerely.
3 different cameras/sytems!

doesn't it get confusing?
one of the reasons i have 3 p's is to keep it simple, nothing changes except the focal length (and sometimes it's only to a different 35!:))

i don't know how you do it and i know you can do it because i've seen some of the very nice shots you've posted from the trip.
i'm amazed.

joe
 
I agree with you that the 90 lens fixed on a body may be too bulky. It simply is a wish that I sometimes have when I use the Hexar with the 35mm lens. It would be a good pair of lenses and cameras for my purposes when traveling.
 
Joe, I could have done with only 2, but I brought the hexar to load with b&w, the ricoh and leica with color.

I guess it could be confusing. I suppose having used the cameras quite a bit (independently) helps. The practice I get from reading on the forum while watching TV, and talking to my wife all at the same time has also been invaluable :)

Thanks for the compliment.
 
Raid, I know it is just a wish. I am not trying to be obstinate; just trying to think of some answers to your question.
 
Well, you have done something similar by taking three camera systems. It's not so bad really.
 
Even if the market had been there, you would never have seen a Hexar AF variant with a 90mm/f2 lens.

With the 35/2, the electromechanical leaf shutter is operated at its limit to uncover and recover the 17.5mm of physical lens aperture in 1/250sec. Everyone is already complaining about that as a top speed..

A hefty 45mm physical aperture for an electromechanical leaf shutter would make the fastest shutter speed drop to 1/90 or so. Well, you could reason that that's enough to stick with the 1/focal length rule for handholding, but it sure isn't practical outdoors in the sun with ISO400 loaded.

The leaf shutter would have to be completely redesigned, and would resemble those you find on for instance Bronica SLRs. Although these are kept open by an electric current, they are fired mechanically. The energy required to operate them at 1/500 for an approx. 30mm physical aperture is obtained and stored by pre-tensioning springs.
 
raid amin said:
Now why didn't Konica think about offering such a camera/lens combination, along with the wonderful 35mm/2 lens. Then I could have bought two Hexars for travel equipment. The Hexar body is light and the lens is wonderful. Need I say more? Each time I use the Hexar Silver, I marvel at its performance. It is my only AF camera, and when I want to be 100% sure I get tack sharp results even when not concentrating fully on the subject, it is the camera to use.
Click to expand...

I think a 90 f/2 lens is unrealistic just because of the amount of glass required. It would probably also test to the limit the IR autofocus. A more realistic alternative would be a 75 f/2.8 or f/4. 35/75 is still a killer combo. I would imagine they could build a collapsible 75 into the same space as the Hexar's 35 takes up. BUT one reason why the Hexar's lens is so good is that they didn't make that compromise. Most compact cameras retract the lens when not in use, but Konica just bolted the best lens they could make smack bang on the front!

Good luck in finding a compact camera with a telephoto lens. There have been a couple of RFF threads on the issue - there isn't a camera that fits the bill. It was this requirement that drew me to the Leica CL with the Elmar 90mm. What a move that was! Less than 12 months later I have three M-mount bodies and 10 lenses! But the Hexar remains a much-used camera for me.
 
Weight and bulk might be against it, too. I've just received the 90/2 Summicron from AlexC, and it's a handfull! Pic here Any comment from regular users of that length/aperture?
 
It's a fun idea, but as Ray and others indicated, not too practical. I think you would be more likely to see a zoom hexar (blasphemy!). But seriously, I think if that was their goal, it would probably be a zoom camera. Perhaps the CM zoom for you Raid?
 
ChrisN said:
Weight and bulk might be against it, too. I've just received the 90/2 Summicron from AlexC, and it's a handfull! Pic here Any comment from regular users of that length/aperture?
Click to expand...

Chris, a modern one is a lot, lot, smaller. Only slightly bigger than the 90F2.8, which I think is preferable. (it's v. sharp all across the frame wide open).
 
Peter's point is well taken. The leaf shutter on such a lens would be a beast. However, if Konica had designed such a camera from the get-go, the AF's would have had focal-plane shutters.

Chris, I have the CV90 and, while not terribly huge, it's big enough to take the fun out of hand holding an m-system camera. That's why it stays in my pocket until needed.
 
I have to admit that I did not fullly consider the design difficulties mentioned above, and yes, a 90/2 may be pushing things too far due to required size and weight. Maybe, as sugegsted, a 75mm/4 would do the job too. I love my M3 with its lenses, but here and there I want a light AF camera that assures me sharp images of moving objects, such as my little children. So maybe a 35/70 combo and keeping the equipment light and compact would have been something that would have tempted me to spend the money to get such equipment. A zoom is not my favorite option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom