Paul Trunfio's Photography Pages |  Paul Trunfio's Home Page

Personal Lens Reviews and Comparisons

Why test lenses? Assuming I am a master of composition, which certainly I am not, the next most important component of taking quality photographs is ensuring that when you need a subject to be sharp, it is sharp. Quality optics in front of the film is what immediately comes to mind when we ask ourselves what makes sharp pictures. Of course, we all use tripods, focus extremely carefully, and take advantage of mirror lockup. Well, maybe not all the time.

First, I want to say that I have no personal experience as to how my Hexanon lenses stack up against other manufacturer's lenses of the time or against modern lenses. My last camera, after all, was a Canon SureShot! For such comparisons, all I have are the reviews of other users who say the Hexanon's hold their own versus lenses of the past and present.

But, then I started collecting lenses, some of the same focal length and decided to see if the reviews of other users are right. So, I took my 28/3.5 (16 AE), 28/3.5 (22 AE), 40/1.8, 50/1.4 (16 AE), 50/1.7 (16 AE), 135/3.2, 135/3.5 Hexar, and 200/4 out for a test run. The goal was to evaluate them under different loupe magnifications (4X, 10X, 30X) to get a feeling for differences.

I went outside on a cloudy mid-afternoon, set my T3n on a heavy tripod, loaded Sensia II 100 slide film, and took appropriately exposed shots with mirror-lockup for all lenses at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. The subject was an old brick building with lots of architectural detail (the main building of the local VA Hospital). The preliminary results, quite frankly, surprised me.

• Comparison 1: 28/3.5 (16 AE) versus the 28/3.5 (22 AE). At 4x and 8x, I could not tell much difference between these two lenses. In fact, at f/5.6 through f/11, I could not tell them apart at 8X and 10X (about an 8 inch x 12 inch print), although I could at 30X (about a 20 inch x 30 inch print). Both lenses produce sharp and contrasty images corner to corner and both show incredible levels of detail. At 30X, there seems to be some slight differences between the two. At every f-stop, the 16 AE version appears to be a bit darker and slightly more contrasty than the 22 AE version. However, also at each f-stop, the 22 AE version appears to be sharper than the 16 AE version.

• Comparison 2: 40/1.8 versus 50/1.4 versus 50/1.7. I could not see any difference between any of these lenses at any aperature from f/4 to f/11. All lenses produce tack sharp corner to corner images and show incredible detail up to 8x magnification. Furthermore, I could not tell any difference between the various aperatures at 8X. At 30X, however, I did notice differences. The 50/1.4 appeared slightly more contrasty and sharp than the 50/1.7. The difference was not enormous, but it was obvious when looking through the loupe. Also, though f/8 and f/11 on both lenses yielded better results than the larger apertures, the differences were not that great. The results from the 135's however are quite different. (Note: The 50/1.7 has a bit of internal "dust specs", but otherwise the glass is completely scratch-free. The 50/1.4 is perfect, as I found it "new in box").

  

• Comparison 3: 135/3.2 Hexanon versus 135/3.5 Hexar. WOW! Now, at 8x I can begin to see grain in both these lenses. At f/4, it wasn't that hard for me to tell that the 3.2 Hexanon is a better performer, more contrast and sharper. Unfortunately, I cannot compare these lenses at other aperatures. The problem was that I forgot to change the aperature on the Hexar, so as I decreased the shutter speed, I ended up progressively overexposing (i.e., by keeping the lens at f/4). I can only say that for the 3.2 Hexanon at lower aperatures it was not that sharp. However, it got better and better real fast as I closed the aperature, especially at f/8 and f/11 where it was superb.

• Comparison 4: 200/4 Hexanon versus 135's. I didn't have many frames left, two to be exact, so I tested the 200/4 at only f/5.6 and f/8. As expected, f/8 was much much better than f/5.6, leading me to believe that, if it is like the 135/3.2, this lens performs best at f/8 and f/11. I don't know if I can legitimately compare the 135 to the 200, I ended up trying to get roughly the same magnification by looking at the 135 through the 8x and the 200 through the 4x. I would say, though, that at f/11 the 135 was more contrasty. The 200, though, was sharp, but I would have to give the edge to the 135 in overall sharpness when compared at roughly the same overall magnification.

For additional "reviews" and comparisons, please see the following: Wulff Photography's reviews of almost all Hexanon lenses, and some of the posts at the Konica SLR User's Pages.

Published Formal Hexanon Lens Tests

I am building a small database of lens performance tests for the Konica Hexanon line of lenses. If you are aware of sources for additional lens test results, please mail me at: trunfio@argento.bu.edu and I will be happy to make similar "graphs" such as those below. Note: Click on the thumbnails for a larger readable and printable version. I may soon perform some of these "formal" lens tests on my own lenses using a resolution charts technique.

Hexanon UC 28mm f/1.8	Hexanon 35mm f/2
Hexanon 40mm f/1.8	Hexanon 50mm f/1.4
Hexanon 85mm f/1.8	Hexanon 100mm f/2.8

 Paul Trunfio's Photography Pages |  Paul Trunfio's Home Page