Konica SLR Lenses - 40mm vs. the 35s

[runswithsizzers]

Recently, I acquired a nice Konica Autoreflex T4 that included a Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.7. I am very impressed with the 50mm f/1.7 lens, but I'd like to have something in the 35mm range. I also like smaller/lighter SLRs so when I read about the Konica Hexanon 40mm f/1.8, I was excited to try one.

The first 40mm Hexanon I bought had significant haze and some fungus, and the second one was definitely not sharp (possibly decentered?). The Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 gets a lot of praise for IQ, but there are also a fair number of people saying it's over-rated - and not in the same league with the 50mm f/1.7.

So, now I am trying to decide if want to gamble on trying to find a third copy of the 40mm, or if maybe I should be looking at one of Konica's 35mm lenses instead. The 35s look a lot bigger than the 40mm, but if the image quality is more like the 50mm, then I can accept the extra size and weight.

Does anyone have any actual experience or reliable test results that compares the Konica 40mm with one of Konica's 35mm lenses?

Thank you

 

[Trask]

I have a couple of Konica T3 cameras, and among my Konica lenses is the 40mm f/1.8 — which I’ve found to be a very sharp lens. The fact that it’s near the 43mm “correct normal” focal length of 24X36 negatives is a plus. I’ve read that the 50mm f/1.7 lens is perhaps the sharpest of the Konica 50’s; I’ve had a couple of examples with gummy aperture blades, so my on-film personal experience with that lens is limited. I have found the website buhla.de (German, English) to be great source of information about all things related to Konica SLRs; the assessment there is that the 40mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.7 go toe-to-toe in the sharpness category. And of course he fully examines the 35mm lenses too.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have a couple of Konica T3 cameras, and among my Konica lenses is the 40mm f/1.8 — which I’ve found to be a very sharp lens. The fact that it’s near the 43mm “correct normal” focal length of 24X36 negatives is a plus. I’ve read that the 50mm f/1.7 lens is perhaps the sharpest of the Konica 50’s; I’ve had a couple of examples with gummy aperture blades, so my on-film personal experience with that lens is limited. I have found the website buhla.de (German, English) to be great source of information about all things related to Konica SLRs; the assessment there is that the 40mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.7 go toe-to-toe in the sharpness category. And of course he fully examines the 35mm lenses too.

Funny, I just finished reading his comparison of 35mm f/2.0 and the 35mm f/2.8. But I can't find where he says much about the 40mm f/1.8. I did find <this>
"During the late 1970s, Konica began outsourcing the production of some of its final generation of SLR lenses to Tokina. These later lenses are generally identifiable by a minimum aperture of f/22 rather than f/16. Konica’s standard kit lens for the T4 was a “new” version of its 50mm f/1.7, with the Tokina-sourced 40mm f/1.8 beginning to replace it in 1979. Although lenses like the 50mm f/1.7 or the 40mm f/1.8 are certainly capable of taking good and memorable photographs, neither of these are in the top tier of standard lenses, which is understandable given their low price points."​

... but I was not much encouraged by it.
Thanks for your reply

EDITED: Apologies @Trask, the quote above is not from buhla.de, but from davidde.com - my mistake. The information provided by <buhla.de> is much more favorable:

"Image quality of the Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8 is outstanding – some photography magazines praised it as one of the sharpest lenses ever built by any manufacturer for 35 mm cameras. Whether or not this is true is left open, but certainly the lens renders razor-sharp images with very high contrast and even illumination from edge to edge. The lens does not leave much room for improvements and plays in the same league as the internal linkHexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7, which is also an absolute premium lens."​

I guess I just need to find a good copy.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 50mm 1.7 at one point was used by the Japanese Governmental Quality Control department as the bench mark for rating 50mm lens. I have a late model 40mm, came with a Cosnia made TC. Although lighter not as sharp as the 1.7 or 1.4. My 35 2.8 is a really sharp lens as well. I don't have the 35, 2.0, if you price does not scare you off, it has been rated as a top performer, very sharp, a tad on the heavy side.

In case you have seen this web site, an excellent review of the Konica SLRS.

https://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html

 

[runswithsizzers]

The 50mm 1.7 at one point was used by the Japanese Governmental Quality Control department as the bench mark for rating 50mm lens. I have a late model 40mm, came with a Cosnia made TC. Although lighter not as sharp as the 1.7 or 1.4. My 35 2.8 is a really sharp lens as well. I don't have the 35, 2.0, if you price does not scare you off, it has been rated as a top performer, very sharp, a tad on the heavy side.

In case you have seen this web site, an excellent review of the Konica SLRS.

https://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html

Yes, those web pages provided by buhla.de are very helpful.

I have a Pentax-M 35mm f/2.0 for my MX cameras, which I use a lot. In the Pentax M-series, the 35mm f/2 is not really much bigger or heavier than the 50mm f/1.7. And mine was affordable. But in the Konica AR series, it looks like the 35mm f/2 is quite a bit heftier than the Hexanon 50mm f/1.7 - and quite a bit more expensive than the Pentax equivalent.

Now, I am leaning towards the Hexanon AR 35mm f/2.8, which I notice focuses closer than the 40mm. Is your 35/2.8 the older version (minimum f/16), or the newer version (minimum f/22)?

 

[Paul Howell]

Mine is the older version, I seldom miss the extra stop, another good lens that does not go for much is the 28mm 3.5. Next on my list is the 100 2.8.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I almost never use apertures smaller than f/11, so if one lens goes to f/22 and another to f/16, it's all the same to me. But the minimum aperture makes it easy to spot the newer version of the 35/2.8.

The <specs> show the newer 35/2.8 lens is a fair bit smaller than the original one. The optical design was changed - but so far, I have been unable to determine how that might have affected image quality. Sometimes, the manufacturers change the design to improve image quality, but sometimes, for other reasons - such as to make the lens less expensive, or smaller. I think I'd prefer the smaller version - unless the redesign sacrificed IQ for size. Unfortunately, I am not finding any newer versions of the 35/2.8 on eBay, right now. There are several 40/1.8 lenses available, so maybe the decision has been made for me. ;-)

I consider a 28mm lens to be an essential part of my Pentax kit - but I am not planning to build up a kit around the Konica T4. All I want for the Konica is one good, general-purpose, walk-about lens for when I don't want to carry the bag full of Pentaxes and lenses. Using the auto-exposure feature of the Konica T4 is a little more laid-back experience, and makes a nice change of routine from the Pentax MX kit.

 

[Paul Howell]

Cant say which, the newer or older version is shaper, my copy of the older version will resolve Tmax 200. 10 years ago, likely longer I used the last of my microfiche film and tested my lot of 50mm lens, don't recall who many LMM, but of the 9 or 10 lens I tested the Konica 50 1.7 was the sharpest followed by the Miranda 50 1.9. I only had a few rolls of microfiche, did not test my 5 35mms that I had on hand.
I bought my first Konica in 1968, the original T, I was in college and freelancing at local papers in Southern Caili. I had a Spotmatic which was very good, but I wanted the shutter speed priority exposure feature. The old timers gave me a hard time about using the A mode, most had been trained in WWII by the Army or Navy, and were still using Sunny 16. One of the editors I worked for told me the negatives from the Konica T were the most consistent and easiest to print. I sold my T to get a Nikon with a motor drive.

 

[runswithsizzers]

So far, I've only seen one roll from the Konica T4 - Kodak <Portra 160> - but I was impressed with the AE results. I have been bragging up my Pentax MX cameras for the past 30 years or more, but my initial impression is, the Konica with AE may give better exposures with less effort.

 

[dynachrome]

The TC was not made by Cosina. The later TC-X was made by Cosina. A 40/1.8 in good condition is certainly worth having. It is excellent optically but not first rate mechanically. I have three 35/2 Hexanons. All are excellent. The extra weight and size over the 35/2.8 would only be important to someone very old, in poor health or both. I find that the older 28/3.5 that stops down to f/16 is sharper than the later one which stops down to f/22.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yeah, I agree the 40 1.8 I have does not have the build quality of the 50s I have. Haven't shot with my Ts in while, guess I'll dig them out for spin around the block.

 

[craigclu]

I found the 40 to be quite sharp and seemed slightly lower in contrast than the 50's. Very little distortion, given the idealized focal length. I've got few squirreled away around here. To OP: You can have one for the postage and a donation of your choosing to Photrio. PM if interested.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I found the 40 to be quite sharp and seemed slightly lower in contrast than the 50's. Very little distortion, given the idealized focal length. I've got few squirreled away around here. To OP: You can have one for the postage and a donation of your choosing to Photrio. PM if interested.

Thanks for your reply, and generous offer. If you have ever compared the 40 to either of the 35s, I would love to hear more about that.

Trying to figure out how to PM - is that the same thing as: "Start a conversaton?

 

[MattKing]

Trying to figure out how to PM - is that the same thing as: "Start a conversaton?

Yes.
"Start a Conversation"

 

[craigclu]

This got me thinking.... Back when these lenses were actively sold new, I did some lens testing with a friend. I could only find our results from the 35mm ƒ2.0 but recall it being very similar to the Modern Photography lens testing results. I had one of their kits and other than the interpretation of the line splitting, tended to agree with the magazine's results. MP said very positive things about the sharpness of the 40's and the results were similar to the 35. The 40's were packaged with Konica bodies and almost free seeming so they were surprisingly good. Some lenses seemed to test better than their field results and the 35 was one of those. Sharp on edgy subjects (mechanical things, etc) but never excited me on people shots...??? Attached is the results from the 35. I have a vague memory of testing the 40's but can't get my fingers on the results (35+ years ago!).

 

[runswithsizzers]

This got me thinking.... Back when these lenses were actively sold new, I did some lens testing with a friend. I could only find our results from the 35mm ƒ2.0 but recall it being very similar to the Modern Photography lens testing results. I had one of their kits and other than the interpretation of the line splitting, tended to agree with the magazine's results. MP said very positive things about the sharpness of the 40's and the results were similar to the 35. The 40's were packaged with Konica bodies and almost free seeming so they were surprisingly good. Some lenses seemed to test better than their field results and the 35 was one of those. Sharp on edgy subjects (mechanical things, etc) but never excited me on people shots...??? Attached is the results from the 35. I have a vague memory of testing the 40's but can't get my fingers on the results (35+ years ago!).

View attachment 294615

Wow! Thanks for that information!

 

[alanrockwood]

Just as an aside, I remember decades ago when Konica ads used to include the phrase "The lens alone is worth the price."

 

[grat]

They did make some ridiculously good lenses. The 48mm f/2 in my Konica IIIA rangefinder is bonkers. I'm finishing off my first roll with my "new" 80-200 f/4 UC zoom on my T3. Biiig honkin' lens.

This picture blows my mind every time I look at it. Each blue frame is an image taken with that lens-- I don't know if you could recreate it with any other manufacturer's lens lineup.