Hexar vs. Hexanon?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by chicks, May 25, 2012.

  1. chicks

    chicks Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 1, 2012
    The Big Valley, CA
    Just picked up a trio of Konica Hexar lenses at the Goodwill; 28/3.5, 135/3.5 and 200/4. Mint condition, but a quick search reveals that they're possibly not as well regarded as the Hexanons.

    I already have a Canon FD 28/3.5 and FD 135/2.5, so will be comparing those, but didn't have anything approaching 200mm 'til now, so should be fun to play with.

    Anyone using adapted Hexar lenses? Good, bad, indifferent?
  2. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Real Name:
    I believe that Hexar's were cheaper, heavier entry-level offerings as compared to the Hexanon line. I've got a handful of Hexanons (40mm, 52mm, 57mm) which give me good results but I've never picked up a Hexar.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so mount them up and see what you can make with them.
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    from www.buhla.de - Konica Hexanon and Hexar lenses

  4. CUB

    CUB Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 19, 2012
    The original Hexar SLR lenses were a cheaper range that were made for Konica by a contractor. I thought it was Cosina rather than Tamron, but I'm not sure.

    I do know that the Konica TC-X body was made by Cosina. Perhaps I am making a connection with the Hexar lenses that didn't actually exist?