Hello, new, some lens comments so far.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Konica 35mm SLRs : One Thread
I am in my third week of Konica ownership and it has caused me to sell off all my old Olympus gear. I got my start when a local camera shop was liquidating a bunch of Konica gear from an estate. On the spot I picked up a 57mm f1.2, Autoreflex T, 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f3.2. Since that time I have added a 35mm f2.8 and a 300mm f4.5. All lenses were excellent values - especially compared to other camera systems. I have always loved mechanical camera bodies and abhorred plastic so needless to say I'm very happy so far.
My observations about my lenses so far:
57mm f1.2 (newer version) VERY SHARP! Very warm as well - lower contrast than my other hexanons which I don't really like.
35mm f2.8 (older version) Very Sharp - in the central 2/3 of the image area then softens up in the corners even when stopped down. High contrast - impressive lens.
85mm f1.8 (older version) SHARP SHARP - Full frame sharp like the 57mm. Excellent contrast as well - my favorite lens so far.
135mm f3.2 (newer version?) High contrast Mixed sharpness results so far. At infinity stopped down very sharp. Close focus is a little too soft for my liking. Wide open noticeably softer throughout frame. Cheap lens, overall satisfactory performance for the cost.
300mm f4.5 (late) High contrast, Sharp lens when stopped down. Good wide-open close up but softens at infinity.
These impressions are based on 4 rolls of film and are still a work in progess so please consider them a rough impression.
-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000
I've owned Konica gear for about 20 years, although I've only recently regenerated my interest. (not a pro by a long shot!!). How do you feel the quality of the Konica stuff compares with the Olympus gear?
-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000
I don't think you can really compare the two systems. (I'm also addressing the subsequent question of Konica vs. Olympus) The strengths of Konica equipment are the lenses. Or, just the fun of using a good, inexpensive system. The OM system--a superb design concept--is the most comprehensive in manual focus, behind Canon and Nikon. In lenses, both are very good, but there are many more Zuikos to choose from, and most are multi-coated. The electronic OM's do require periodic servicing, and can be expensive to repair. (Sound familiar?) The owner of the building where I work used to have a camera store on the first floor, and he dropped Konica because you couldn't generate much sales of other system components. Conversely, there were hundreds of OM components available for an OM-10.
Your 300mm lens might focus beyond infinity, which could account for the softness when racked out fully. (The Zuiko 300 does this) Check your viewfinder carefully . . . if it's sharp close up, it should be sharp at infinity. Good luck and have fun!
-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000
Both systems are excellent and offer a lot for the $$$$$. I like my Konica equipment so far in comparison because my 85mm f1.8, 57mm, 35mm, 300mm hexanons are better than my 85mm f2, 50mm, 35mm, and 300mm Zuikos. Yes Olympus makes a 90mm f2 macro which is nothing short of amazing but it is also VERY expensive as well. The 24mm hexanon and 24mm zuiko will probably be a saw-off as will the 15mm hexanon and the 16mm zuiko. Nothing is sharper than my Tamron 180mm f2.5 in either system so that focal length does not matter. So, as long as I can live with the greater size of the Konica cameras / lenses I believe it to be a superior system for me.
-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000
I would second the comments regarding the Tamron 180/2.5 SP lens. I bought one recently. It is a well made beautiful lens. Although I have only shot a few rolls with it so far, I have been VERY impressed with it's optical quality. I really like being able to use the Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses with different brand camera bodies but the mounts are a little flimsy in feel and the aperture rings turn in the opposite direction from the oem lenses in the lines that I use.
-- Anonymous, September 10, 2000