motor drives/Soligor : LUSENET : Konica 35mm SLRs : One Thread

Does anyone know if an Autoreflex motordrive exists? I know I'm probably dreaming, but stranger things have happened. Also, can anyone comment on the quality of Konica mount Soligor lenses? (esp zoom) I'm contemplating a purchase.

Thanx, Matt

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000


Soligor Lenses for Konica


I can't help you concerning the motor drive but I can comment on the Soligor lenses. I have both a Soligor Zoom and a Soligor 28mm. I also have a Konica Hexanon Zoom and a Konica Hexanon 28mm. As for the zoom, I prefer the Hexanon (though the Soligor zoom is still quite good). However, I find that my Soligor 28mm actually produces as sharp a picture as any of my Konica lenses (and a sharper image than my Konica 28mm). Don't know if I just lucked out. However, I have had a wonderful experience with my Soligor lenses.

Steve S

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

lenses for Konica

I would be interested in hearing about other similar to Stephen's experiences with third party lenses for Konica.

I myself had a Tamron 80-210 zoom and a SP35-200 Tamron zoom which neither give me the beautiful colour of Hexanon lenses. On the other hand I have been happy with Kenko's 2x teleconverter. I have used this with a Zykkor 500mm mirrortele. My favourite Konica lenses are the 85mm/1,8 which always gives me wonderful colour, and also the 40mm/1,8 and the 24mm. My 200mm/4 is not as good as I had hoped.

I have discovered that I get better lenses when I buy the beat up worn examples over the mint like new ones . The good ones evidently get used and worn, and the lousy ones don't. On the other hand Konica was supposed to have excellent quality control.

Have any of you discovered differences between different hexanon lenses of the same type? I did a shoot-out with a friend and our collective 50mm collection. Which included a Minolta, Canon, Zeiss 1,4 and Hexanon 50mm and 40mm. The sharpest were the Zeiss and Hexanon. My eyes have never liked Canon colour rendition. Minolta colour was bright and happy. The Zeiss had what I would describe as nice edge colour contrast definition, but the Hexanons have that magic in the colour spread (gradation?) that I see elsewhere in 35mm with Leica minilux. Technically analyzed the differences were not that big. But emotionally the hexanons grip me like no other.

I have recently acquired a 52mm. Does anyone have a comment on this strange focal length lens. Leica also has strange focal lengths. Is there a connection?

Thanks Tapani

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Third-Party Lenses

Tapani, Allow me to plug Tokina lenses. I have had a number of them over the years and liked them all. First, their color rendition is very close if not always exactly the same as the Hexanons. Second, generally, they are constructed rather like Hexanons, so much so that, operationally, if you don't look to see what is on the camera, you would swear it was a Hexanon. And thirdly, they are nice and sharp across the lens line, so far as I can tell, since I don't own the whole line, myself. One other point is the flare factor. I have yet to induce flare in any of them unless the lens is pointed right into the sun and even then, it is well-controlled. Another selling point to me is the lens mount. Many third-party lens makers seem to skimp on this vital component. Tokina does not. They fit nice and tight with no play except in cases, of course, where the camera mount is badly worn. Your 200mm may have a decentered element or other physical damage. Check for excessive flare. If there is a significant amount, it is a good indicator that the lens is damaged, possibly from being dropped. Also, towards the end, Konica's quality control seems to have slipped. Perhaps yours is a late example. While your logic applies to many classic lenses, exterior condition is not a good indicator of whether a Hexanon is lousy or not. I have seen many examples of virtually unused lenses (I have a few, too) that produce sharp photos. I think there is an explanation for this phenomenon. Back in the Stone Age (the early 70's on), there was an axiom: the more cameras carried around the neck as jewelry, the better the photographer. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, as well as others suffered the same fate. People would buy a huge stock of lenses that were never used just to fill their gadget bags so they looked like they were pros. Herbert Keppler (now of Popular Photography), when he was the head honcho at Modern Photography, used to make a lot of snide comments through the years about this. I believe I have a pretty comprehensive collection of Hexanon normal lenses (50mm f/1.7 new and old versions, a pair of 52mm f/1.8's, and a pair of 40mm f/1.8's [ I don't particularly care for "speed lenses"]). Except for angle of view, all render the same image. BTW, if you are into macro, the 40mm lends itself to it very well. If you think 52mm is strange, try the 57mm f/1.4. Of course, Pentax had a 55mm normal for many years. Actually, the marked focal length of a lens is not perfectly accurate. There is a "slop" factor of a percent or two concerning this. In other words, a lens that is actually 51.1mm or 49.3mm can be considered a 50mm. This is true of all lenses by all manufacturers. There are many examples of odd-ball focal lengths in photography. Kodak even used 44mm as a normal on the Pony camera line, I believe. Even in the cloistered world of 35mm SLRs there many such.

Jon from Deepinaharta, Georgia

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000

Motor Drives

Matt, Of all the Autoreflexes, only the T-4 and FC-1 had separate motor drives, the FS-1 and FT-1 models having integral built-in types. All others had ye olde wind cranks.

Jon from Deepinaharta, Georgia

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ