peterm1
Veteran
Over the past year or so I came to realize the Stirling reputation of Konica lenses - they were always a bit of a "sleeper" to me.
In any event some months ago, I had the opportunity to buy some Konica lenses due to a local camera store having a few on sale fairly inexpensively from a deceased estate.
Over a period of a few months last year and late the year before, I ended up buying their highly regarded Hexanon AR 135mm f3.2 (often said anecdotally to be one of the sharpest classic 135mm lenses ever ) and AR 50mm f1.7 plus a mammoth and weighty zoom - the Hexanon AR 28-135mm f4-4.6. All were inexpensive for me to buy, though to an obvious high standard. Konica's build quality seems second to none.
Both the 135mm and the zoom I find to be a bit too big to be comfortable on most mirrorless cameras, especially the latter which is not only big but heavy (the 135mm is not heavy - just relatively large and long) but I expect big things from the 50mm f1.7. I have read and been told that the Japanese 50mm f1.7 lenses of that era were all built to the Zeiss Planar design which were manufactured under licence in Japan, mostly by Yashica at their Tomioka plant for themselves and on behalf of other Japanese makers, though I suspect the Konica one may have been made by that company given its skills in the field. Not sure though. In any event being a "mere" f1.7 lens it is normally quite cheap to buy - the f1.4 which also has a high reputation is somewhat dearer.
The zoom, having an f4 maximum aperture can also be taxing apart from its weight, in that it does not seem to respond quite so well to use of focus peaking, making it a bit harder to focus quickly. Though its contrast is very good. (Normally I have focus peaking issues with low contrast lenses for obvious reasons). One unusual aspect of it apart from its size is the that its focus throw is exceedingly short. Only 90 degrees from nearest focus to infinity. This does not help with focus accuracy but I suppose its slow maximum aperture helps hit focus.
I have not had the chance to do any serious photography or even testing of them on my mirrorless kit - just a few random photos around the house but will do so in the near future. I would be interested in seeing other people's examples of pictures as well as hearing your impressions of the above or any other of their lenses.
In any event some months ago, I had the opportunity to buy some Konica lenses due to a local camera store having a few on sale fairly inexpensively from a deceased estate.
Over a period of a few months last year and late the year before, I ended up buying their highly regarded Hexanon AR 135mm f3.2 (often said anecdotally to be one of the sharpest classic 135mm lenses ever ) and AR 50mm f1.7 plus a mammoth and weighty zoom - the Hexanon AR 28-135mm f4-4.6. All were inexpensive for me to buy, though to an obvious high standard. Konica's build quality seems second to none.
Both the 135mm and the zoom I find to be a bit too big to be comfortable on most mirrorless cameras, especially the latter which is not only big but heavy (the 135mm is not heavy - just relatively large and long) but I expect big things from the 50mm f1.7. I have read and been told that the Japanese 50mm f1.7 lenses of that era were all built to the Zeiss Planar design which were manufactured under licence in Japan, mostly by Yashica at their Tomioka plant for themselves and on behalf of other Japanese makers, though I suspect the Konica one may have been made by that company given its skills in the field. Not sure though. In any event being a "mere" f1.7 lens it is normally quite cheap to buy - the f1.4 which also has a high reputation is somewhat dearer.
The zoom, having an f4 maximum aperture can also be taxing apart from its weight, in that it does not seem to respond quite so well to use of focus peaking, making it a bit harder to focus quickly. Though its contrast is very good. (Normally I have focus peaking issues with low contrast lenses for obvious reasons). One unusual aspect of it apart from its size is the that its focus throw is exceedingly short. Only 90 degrees from nearest focus to infinity. This does not help with focus accuracy but I suppose its slow maximum aperture helps hit focus.
I have not had the chance to do any serious photography or even testing of them on my mirrorless kit - just a few random photos around the house but will do so in the near future. I would be interested in seeing other people's examples of pictures as well as hearing your impressions of the above or any other of their lenses.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I've had not SLR glass, but I have had 3 Konica C35 which are RF and fixed lens. All three had amazing lenses. In fact they may be the best lenses I've ever had.
Tools by John Carter, on Flickr
Tmax400 by John Carter, on Flickr
I know it is hard to see how great these cameras are on a computer: but they are magic. I still have one left. They were not made to last.
Tools by John Carter, on FlickrTmax400 by John Carter, on FlickrI know it is hard to see how great these cameras are on a computer: but they are magic. I still have one left. They were not made to last.
BlackXList
Well-known
I have and use a bunch of Konica lenses, even as I decreased the amount of film I shoot, the Konica stuff is so good it has to stay.
These days if anything needs doing wholly on film, I'm definitely using my Konica stuff, it's well built and the results are always enjoyable.
These days if anything needs doing wholly on film, I'm definitely using my Konica stuff, it's well built and the results are always enjoyable.
peterm1
Veteran
I've had not SLR glass, but I have had 3 Konica C35 which are RF and fixed lens. All three had amazing lenses. In fact they may be the best lenses I've ever had.
I know it is hard to see how great these cameras are on a computer: but they are magic. I still have one left. They were not made to last.
Yes they are beautiful shots.
peterm1
Veteran
I forgot to mention that I also bought a Hexanon AR 55mm f3.5 Macro lens. It was inexpensive and I was curious, though not really keen on macro images, to see how it performed as an everyday lens. I have found that other 50mm (ish) macro lenses work nicely in terms of both sharpness and in terms of bokeh and some can be used as an everyday lens very successfully. The Micor NIkkor 50mm f2.8 AIS is one such lens.
Well I have found this one is certainly sharp both at macro distances and longer distances but its bokeh is pretty average. Never the less for what I paid its a nice lens (and like other Konica lenses) so very well built and I will be happy to use it on those occasions when I need to shoot something very close.
Well I have found this one is certainly sharp both at macro distances and longer distances but its bokeh is pretty average. Never the less for what I paid its a nice lens (and like other Konica lenses) so very well built and I will be happy to use it on those occasions when I need to shoot something very close.
newst
Well-known
Years back when I first decided to concentrate on using classic lenses I concentrated on Hexanon lenses. Many were great, but even the least were good.
I have since moved away from SLR lenses and shoot mostly rangefinders now, however I still keep my two favorite Hexanons, the 1.7/50 that you know, and the 1.8/85 that I highly recommend.
Just a couple of samples taken with an A7II:
2015-08-18 Smokey A7II Konica 85-18 by newst54, on Flickr
2015-05-30 A7II Konica 85-18 by newst54, on Flickr
I have since moved away from SLR lenses and shoot mostly rangefinders now, however I still keep my two favorite Hexanons, the 1.7/50 that you know, and the 1.8/85 that I highly recommend.
Just a couple of samples taken with an A7II:
2015-08-18 Smokey A7II Konica 85-18 by newst54, on Flickr2015-05-30 A7II Konica 85-18 by newst54, on Flickr
peterm1
Veteran
Three quick photos from the 55mm f3.5 Macro. The statue is an old temple lion from Asia.
The bokeh is a bit nervous for my taste but the image is otherwise pretty acceptable (with though a little fringing visible).
These details are pretty large so not really much of a test of the lens' ability but subject to my focusing its fine.
At close normal distances the lens performs nicely with good detail and contrast. This is to be expected since as I understand it, 50mm macro lenses tend to have fairly simple optical designs which provide excellent sharpness and good contrast at macro and fairly close / normal working distances.
Overall a good lens but not wholly to my taste for "normal" work.
The bokeh is a bit nervous for my taste but the image is otherwise pretty acceptable (with though a little fringing visible).
These details are pretty large so not really much of a test of the lens' ability but subject to my focusing its fine.
At close normal distances the lens performs nicely with good detail and contrast. This is to be expected since as I understand it, 50mm macro lenses tend to have fairly simple optical designs which provide excellent sharpness and good contrast at macro and fairly close / normal working distances.
Overall a good lens but not wholly to my taste for "normal" work.
Trask
Established
Yes, I own and use Konica cameras and lenses (among others). I’ve got a beater T3 with split image screen, and an Auto Reflex that is switchable from full frame 35mm to half frame. I have one Konica lens with a bit of sticky aperture, so my go-to lenses are the 40mm “pancake” lens, and a 28mm f/3.5 lens, both of which are outstandingly sharp — half frame images made with these lenses are very, very usable. Sometimes I overlook the dimension ratio difference and think that a half frame shot I’m looking at was shot full frame. The other thing about the Auto Reflex is that it has one of the few microprism focusing devices that I can really focus with — others, like Pentax Spotmatic, don’t work for me. Here’s a good resource on Konica cameras and lenses — www.buhla.de
02Pilot
Malcontent
I have and am quite fond of a Konishiroku Hexanon 50/1.9 in LTM. It is capable of some very nice images; it is not, however, as inexpensive as the Konica SLR lenses. Note that these samples are considerably sharper in full resolution - hopefully they give you a sense of the character of the lens regardless.
peterm1
Veteran
Years back when I first decided to concentrate on using classic lenses I concentrated on Hexanon lenses. Many were great, but even the least were good.
I have since moved away from SLR lenses and shoot mostly rangefinders now, however I still keep my two favorite Hexanons, the 1.7/50 that you know, and the 1.8/85 that I highly recommend.
Just a couple of samples taken with an A7II:
I especially like the cat photo - it has the look of a very good 85mm lens. The image has the sharp/rounded/soft look that works so well with images produced by the best portrait lenses. And the bokeh is creamy and dreamy.
peterm1
Veteran
I have and am quite fond of a Konishiroku Hexanon 50/1.9 in LTM. It is capable of some very nice images; it is not, however, as inexpensive as the Konica SLR lenses. Note that these samples are considerably sharper in full resolution - hopefully they give you a sense of the character of the lens regardless.
Love the first shot especially. The tonal gradations are just as I like - a fairly gentle roll off. Nicely caught.
newst
Well-known
Yes, it is an excellent lens which is why I won't part with it.
twvancamp
Thom
Consistently impressed with Konica glass, but what bodies are folks shooting on?
The Konica cameras I've handled have felt pretty flimsy.
The Konica cameras I've handled have felt pretty flimsy.
valdas
Veteran
I am using Autoreflex full/half frame model. Quite unique camera able to shoot both half and full frame shots on the same roll with the simple move of a switch.
Some examples with Hexanon 50/1.7 and 28/3.5 lenses on my flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12913993@N05/albums/72157651805238063
petronius
Veteran
On my FS-1 I used the 40mm/1,8, the 28mm/3,5 and the 135mm/3,2. They all feel great on the Alpha 7 too. In fact, the 40mm is most used lens on my A7. The short adapter plus the sort lens give a very well balanced combo with the A7 (I use it without a sunshade). Later on I bought the 35-70mm/3,5 from the 70s which is a large beast, but great in handling and it focuses down to 35cm.
Pictures
Pictures
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
The Autoreflex T-3 is the opposite of flimsy. Excellent camera body -- just know that it takes 2x675 cells (1.3V mercury; 76 or 357 cells are a perfect fit but you need to compensate the film speed -- 200 instead of 400 speed for instance). And it's not quiet either -- the Copal Square shutter isn't stealthy. But it is extremely durable and accurate.
DwF
Well-known
Many years back when I had my Konica Hexar, a friend who worked at a local camera store, and who loved shooting his Konica Autoreflex, told me that, -and rather than paraphrase, I take the following here from a wikipedia. I'm pretty sure he told me this in the 90s before wikipedia existed
"Konica's lenses were even used as a reference for the Japanese Ministry of Industry as the benchmark against other manufacturers' lenses"
"Konica's lenses were even used as a reference for the Japanese Ministry of Industry as the benchmark against other manufacturers' lenses"
DwF
Well-known
And a bit off-topic but Pentax also made some wonderful lenses. I know Pentax's SMC 50 f 1.4 was a favorite for Pentax shooters, but I really liked the SMC 50mm f 1.7
das
Well-known
I use a 35/2 AR Hexanon on film (TC-X & FC-1) and mirrorless
digital. It is a phenomenal lens with alot of character. It was really hard to find but one just popped up on KEH one day. The 35/2.8 is no slouch either. Retrofocal lenses seem to work particularly well on mirrorless. It seems the secret is out though on the better Konica lenses. The 57/1.2, 21/2.8, the UCs, etc. are all getting really $$$ these days.
digital. It is a phenomenal lens with alot of character. It was really hard to find but one just popped up on KEH one day. The 35/2.8 is no slouch either. Retrofocal lenses seem to work particularly well on mirrorless. It seems the secret is out though on the better Konica lenses. The 57/1.2, 21/2.8, the UCs, etc. are all getting really $$$ these days.
Dralowid
Michael
Right at the bottom of the scale the Konica Pop was an excellent little device that consistently produced acceptable results on many family holidays.
Ours was red.
Ours was red.