Does anyone know how the new Konica 35mm KM mount F=2 lens performs. I noticed it is significantly less expensive than a good used Summicron. Also, just for grins, how's the 28mm, I keep hearing different stories but never from anyone who has actually used one.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 08, 2001

Answers

I shot a test roll with the 28mm and it was superb in every way- noticeably better than my 25mm Voigtlander lens and fully useable at f2.8.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 08, 2001.

Mark,

I use to live in Japan, and still have friends there that send me photographic magazines. In the April 2001 issue of "CAPA", they review and present a portfolio made with the Konica 35mm f/2.0 lens. The results of the article look fine, but there is one caveat. When the initial line up from Konica was introduced, featuring the 28mm. 50mm and 90mm lenses, this magazine was very happy to brag about the wide open performance of these lenses, and had several photos made at full aperture. The results were pretty impressive, especially the portraits made with the 90mm lens.

With the article on the 35mm f/2.0 lens, the portfolio was of a very attractive young lady in a large house... environmental portraits made with window light. Every photo was made at f/4.0 or slower. In my mind, if an f/2.0 lens performed well at full aperture, then there should have been at least on shot demonstrating this point... a bragging point on the quality. Many of the shots would have been improved by LESS depth of field, so the use of a small aperture was not a technical consideration as far as the composition was concerned. Overall, the photos looked fine, but at those apertures, (right near or at optimum), they should look good. There was no indication of the wide open performance, which is where rangefinder lenses are so often used.

One interesting point of the article, every photo was made with the Konica lens on a Leica M6.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 08, 2001.

Andrew: Thanks for the info - I've considered the V'lander 28 but want a smaller lens. The leica 28 summ is very expensive and the Elmarit is still not the bargin the Konica is. At present, I have 3 bodies in need of repair so I need to control costs.

Al: Interesting that they used an M6 instead of the Konica body. I would like to see tests of their 35 wide open but I guess it is still rather new.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 08, 2001.

The fixed Hexanon 35mm f2 lens on my Konica Hexar Silver was a revelation in how sharp it is and how well it can handle flare.

The bad news however is that there is a fair bit of barrel distortion. I only found this out by accident when I did a candid shot of someone standing in front of a tile-covered wall. Bummer.

Wonder if Konica has redesigned the 35mm lens, or just transplanted the 35mm from the Hexar Silver (that's my guess).

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), September 08, 2001.

Andrew,

The new detachable lens is a new design. It has been recomputed, and has the now familiar concaved front element. The original lens from the AF Hexar was reputed to be a designed which "borrowed" heavily from the 35mm Leica Summicron from that period.

BTW... the only reason that I made the comment about the lens being used on a Leica M6 in my first response was because according to some comments in one of Erwin Puts' newsletters about this lens, it shouldn't be used on a Leica M because of a difference in the flange measurement (ref: newsletter 7), which causes the focal plane to fall in a different place. It seems strange that if this were true, that the Japanese lens producer would not have just used a real Konica RF, and shown the lens in the best way for that magazine photo shoot.

I wonder who is right, regarding the cross utilization of Leica M and Konica? I guess I'll keep on using my old 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron and enjoy the compatibility arguments from afar.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 08, 2001.

in one of Erwin Puts' newsletters about this lens, it shouldn't be used on a Leica M because of a difference in the flange measurement

I have read this several times but no-one seems to have any proof that there is a difference in actual focusing accuracy. When I have asked for some evidence of the various proponents, there is never an answer.

And don't forget that Puts is the person who said the Konica rangefinder had too short an effective baselength to focus the fast 50mm lenses, but when Leica brought out a camera with a slightly shorter baselength, it could magically focus those lenses. Or maybe no-one cares about independent reporting?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 08, 2001.

I haven't tried the 35. It is a new design different from the fixed Hexar, as described.

Erwin Puts ranked the Konica 35 as better than the pre-ASPH Leica 35 'cron and not as good as the ASPH 35 'cron, FWIW.

I have used Konica/Leica lenses and bodies interchangeably and not had any problems with the focal plane being in the wrong place - they worked just fine whether scale-focused at infinity or focused with the rangefinder - at least one of which should have revealed any incompatability. Someone claims to have figured out that the "difference" has to do with how the distance is measured (flange to pressure plate vs. flange to film surface, which are obviously numbers that differ by at least the thickness of the film.) The LUG (you-know- what USERS GROUP) had a cat-fight about this.

I have the RF body and the rangefinder is just a little sloppy compared to Leica. That, plus tha fact that apparently some of the first run of cameras were not adjusted properly at the factory, is what IMHO, led to the incompatability rumor. Plus the fact that Konica wouldn't cover focusing with Leica lenses (any more than Nikon will cover focusing with Sigma (e.g.) lenses) under warranty.

Regarding the 28, here is some MORE KONICA LENS STUFF for you to look at.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 09, 2001.