newbie with a couple comments and questionsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Konica 35mm SLRs : One Thread
hi there--- i have had my uncle's TC sitting in my house for years and very recently did i start to get the photography bug (maybe having a kid helped push me along).
anyway, i have been reading all about konica's and have a couple comments:
1. i am in boston and can get the wien zinc/air 1.35V batteries for 4 dollars each. (i saw many times posted that they are extraordinarily expensive)... at least here in boston they are just as much as the 1.5V alkalines.
2. lenses also seem to be cheaper here than what they go for on the web and on ebay. i got a hexanon 28mm/3.5 for 39 at a retail store and a hexanon (new in the box) 135mm/3.2 for 40. and a 2x teleconverter for 5 dollars. used TC's cost 99 dollars here.
here are my newbie questions:
1. the 135mm lens i got has the EE on the aperature ring. i understand this is the older model. my question is: is there a difference in quality between the older model and the newer model (with the AE)?
2. with respect to used lenses: i notice statements on ebay like: the lens is seeing the beginning of fungus. my question is: can one visually see the fungus? how does one know that the used lens they are buying is of good quality?
3. can anyone compare the quality of pics taken with the konica's to the new expensive SLR's on the market? i am just curious and throughout my reading i didn't see such a comparison.
4. lastly, i got a 75-205mm vivitar zoom lens for the konica for only 19 dollars. my question is: is this a horrible lens ?
thanks folks for the wonderful web site and message board. i hope, as i get more knowledgeable and experienced, to be able to contribute more.....
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000
Paul, As to your first question about a difference in quality between the AE and EE 135mm f/3.2s- there is none. All that occured was the change in nomenclature from "electric eye" to "automatic exposure". AS far as fungus is concerned, the more you avoid it, the better. And yes, you can see it when it develops. It looks like hairs or cracks in the glass, and sometimes it looks like black dust albeit in large spots. On occasion, large amounts of flare are apparent, too. Thirdly, as to Konica lens quality, lens quality overall in the 35mm field has not taken any quantum leaps since Konica got out of the SLR biz. In fact, in many cases, there has been a retrograde trend among manufacturers, especially in build quality. Build quality translates into longer-lasting lenses that are able to hold their tolerances better with a minimum of problems like lubricant on iris blades, paint flecking on lens elements, focussing helical lubricants not drying out or clogging up, etc. Also mounts have a great influence on the workings of a lens. Today's plastic or aluminum mounts just don't have the capacity to last very long under any heavy usage by someone who needs to change lenses often. As to quality of the pictures taken with Konica lenses, you would be hard-pressed to find a lens line that is at all better. The Vivitar 75-205 is a decent lens for its era. From what I remember about it, it would be wise to find an adjustable lens hood, if possible. These are difficult to find now, but were available years ago.
Jon from Deepinaharta, Georgia
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
This site is super!
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000