Konica AR lenses

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by vlad2304, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. vlad2304

    vlad2304 New to Mu-43

    May 30, 2012
    I've just bought from Ebay Tokina RMC 3,8 / 75 - 150 with K/AR mount and corresponding adapter.
    I will appreciate if somebody share his experience and give recommendations what other K/AR lenses are worth buying.
    Thank you.
  2. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    I have several, and they're all fine. My favorite is the Hexanon 135mm f3.2 (It's on my E-PL1 right now)
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I love my Konica lenses. They are cheap and excellent quality. They are some of my favorite lenses. I especially like the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 40/1.8. The 57/1.2 and 85/1.8 (although they tend to also be the most spendy) are supposed to be among the best of that focal length regardless of brand and the 50/1.7 and 135/3.2 are both super cheap and have outstanding IQ.
  4. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Real Name:
    I'll be following this thread with interest myself. I just bought a 50mm f/1.7 on ebay (should arrive tomorrow), and I'm trying to find an 85mm f/1.8 too, but I got beat to the punch on ebay a couple times... tough one to snag compared to the 50mm.

    I couldn't find too many examples images from these lenses adapted on MFT bodies but there's a few here on mu-43.com and they were impressive. All the reviews I found online for the old Konica Hexanon AR lenses were very positive also so I'm looking forward to trying mine out this week!
  5. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    Madison, WI
    I don't know anything about the zooms, my instinct is that you'd be better off with primes if you're adapting older lenses. The Hexanons are really excellent lenses at good prices used, I had some great fun with the 40/1.8 and 50/1.7 for most of last year. It's a useful focal length for portraits and detail shots.

    The Hexanon 85/1.8 is absolutely superb and I really should to put mine to more use.

    +1 to previous comments on the 135/3.2, it is lightweight, cheap, and sharp.

    I had both the Hexanon 200/3.5 and 300/4.5, the 300mm was an absolute beast and quite heavy. I occasionally regret selling the 200mm though, it was somewhat heavy but not too bad and once in a while the 135mm doesn't have enough reach.
  6. heedpantsnow

    heedpantsnow Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 24, 2011
    I have the 24/2.8, 50/1.7, & 135/3.2. They're all great, but the 135 gets the most use.

    I do love the IQ of these, but the build quality really gets me as well. They are like little tanks. I think if anyone ever tries to steal my gear, I'll just pull one of these from my bag, knock him out with it, then put it on my camera and take a pic of the guy (prob won't be damaged)!
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Gyles

    Gyles Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2012
    Sunny Norfolk, UK
    Real Name:
    Travelographer and self confessed Hexaholic
    40mm f1.8, 50mm f1.7 are both easy to find, cheap enough and a great place to start.....they're also very well regarded lenses. The 135mm f3.2 and 85mm f1.8 are next on my list, but they are harder to come by and cost much more.

    check out this link http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonUebersicht.html
  8. snkenai

    snkenai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2010
    Been out this morning before breakfast, with the 52mm, f1.8, on my E-p2. Take your time to get it right, and it does an impressive job. I have had several different Konicas, and like them a lot. A bit big and heavy. The price you pay for old quality.
  9. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 23, 2012
    I'm also awaiting this lens from an ebay purchase. It will be my first adapted lens, so I wanted to start with something economical.
  10. vlad2304

    vlad2304 New to Mu-43

    May 30, 2012
    Thank you all!!!
    I will watch more closely Ebay for these lenses as they are (most of them at least) really cheap.
  11. ArchSaturn

    ArchSaturn Mu-43 Rookie

    May 23, 2012
    I've got a 57/1.4 that I've been quite happy with. Don't have much to compare it too, but the build quality is solid and it's sharp, and it was cheap. I know there are a few people on this forum who has issues with that particular lens not solidly attaching to the adapter, but I've had no problems. Always keeping my eye out for a Konica 135 at the right price, been eyeballing the 28mm but not sure the usage will justify the price.

    Anyone out there have the 57/1.4 and the 50/1.7? As I said, I've been happy with the 57, but I've heard the occasional blip that the 50/1.7 is awesome.
  12. Warren T.

    Warren T. Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 10, 2010
    San Francisco
    I have the 50mm f1.7, and it is a very nice lens, incredibly sharp. I also have a mint condition 28mm f3.5 with matching rectangular lens hood, and a 40mm f1.8.

    I rarely use the 28mm and 50mm, I like the 40mm because it is compact enough even with the adapter. The 40mm also has a Jekyll/Hyde personality, soft and surreal at wide open, then razor sharp when stopped down a tad.

  13. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Real Name:
    Well, my 50mm f/1.7 arrived today, now if I only had the adapter to go with it I'd be shooting with it right now :tongue: Hopefully it'll arrive tomorrow. I checked out what I could today and the focus and aperture ring on it feel great, looks like a very nice lens to use. If the optical quality matches the samples I've seen in other threads here I'll be pretty happy with this one.
  14. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Real Name:
    I've got the 57/1.4 but not the 50/1.7. I have read that the 50/1.4 is superior to the 57, but I'm very happy with the quality if the 57. I don't have any issues with looseness. In fact, the 57/1.4 is probably my favorite adapted lens. (along with the Konica 40/1.8 and the Rikenon 50/2).

    Sent from my Android phone using Mu-43 App
  15. rwisem

    rwisem Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 20, 2012
    Sequim, Washington, USA
    Real Name:
    Roger Wiseman
    Konica AR

    My film outfit, which I haven't used in 12 years is Konica. I have the 40/1.8, the 50/1.7, a HEXAR 28/3.5. and a Kitstar 135/2.8.

    Mostly I shoot the 40. As someone said, it's fairly compact. I'm sure I will give the others some body time, too.
  16. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Real Name:
    Lynne Ezzell
    Can someone recommend a cheap adapter for the 135 that the lens will actually lock on? My adapter works on the 40 but the 135 refuses to lock
  17. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Real Name:
    Most likely is a problem with the lens as my adapters (I have 3 cheap ones AR to NEX and 2 AR to m43) all work fine going from the 40mm to my 135mm to the 200mm and to the 85mm.

    I Can't wait to get out a little bit tomorrow before work and try my newly acquired OM-D with the 85mm. The 85mm is worthy of all the hype (this is a relative statement) IMHO.
  18. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Real Name:
    Did some shooting with my Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.7 today since the adapter arrived. This was my first time using an adapted lens, and it was an interesting experience. Overall it was sort of a mixed bag. The lens is capable of being plenty sharp, focus and aperture ring have a great tactile feel, and I got some pleasing results shooting with the lens.

    On the downside, I'm not sure if it's a function of the older lens coating technology or something else, but the lens seems negatively affected by strong front lighting. In shooting indoors and outdoors this afternoon I could see color bands, reflections, and haze in several shots. Usually this was present when shooting towards a window or strong sunlight. I'm shooting with an aftermarket (ebay) lens hood but it's not a particularly deep one, so I'm wondering if a much deeper lens hood would help. By comparison I've taken similar shots with native lenses and not observed these issues, so it's definitely something to do with the adapted lens.

    That said, when I can avoid strong front lighting I was able to get some nice results with this lens. I'll have to continue to shoot with it to get used to the ins and outs. Here's a couple from today:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30940068@N02/7463296164/" title="Through the Window by jloden, on Flickr">[​IMG]"800" height="601" alt="Through the Window"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30940068@N02/7463294324/" title="Resisting the March of Time by jloden, on Flickr">[​IMG]"601" height="800" alt="Resisting the March of Time"></a>
  19. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Unless the lens has a recessed fornt element like the 24/2.8 or 35/2.8 I like to throw hood on them. BTW, I love that second shot.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Real Name:
    Thanks :thumbup:

    Yeah, the front element is slightly recessed but I think this definitely needs a hood. As I noted in my post I've got an ebay aftermarket hood on it, but it's a fairly shallow style. If I can find a deeper one I may try that.