Why test lenses? Assuming I am a master of composition, which
certainly I am not, the next most important component of taking quality
photographs is ensuring that when you need a subject to be sharp, it is
sharp. Quality optics in front of the film is what immediately comes to
mind when we ask ourselves what makes sharp pictures. Of course, we all
use tripods, focus extremely carefully, and take advantage of mirror
lockup. Well, maybe not all the time.
First, I want to say that I have no personal experience as to how my
Hexanon lenses stack up against other manufacturer's lenses of the time
or against modern lenses. My last camera, after all, was a Canon
SureShot! For such comparisons, all I have are the reviews of other
users who say the Hexanon's hold their own versus lenses of the past and
present.
But, then I started collecting lenses, some of the same focal length
and decided to see if the reviews of other users are right. So, I took
my 28/3.5 (16 AE), 28/3.5 (22 AE), 40/1.8, 50/1.4 (16 AE), 50/1.7 (16
AE), 135/3.2, 135/3.5 Hexar, and 200/4 out for a test run. The goal was
to evaluate them under different loupe magnifications (4X, 10X, 30X) to
get a feeling for differences.
I went outside on a cloudy mid-afternoon, set my T3n on a heavy tripod,
loaded Sensia II 100 slide film, and took appropriately exposed shots
with mirror-lockup for all lenses at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. The
subject was an old brick building with lots of architectural detail (the
main building of the local VA Hospital). The preliminary results, quite
frankly, surprised me.
- Comparison 1: 28/3.5 (16 AE) versus the 28/3.5 (22 AE). At 4x
and 8x, I could not tell much difference between these two lenses. In
fact, at f/5.6 through f/11, I could not tell them apart at 8X and 10X
(about an 8 inch x 12 inch print), although I could at 30X (about a 20
inch x 30 inch print). Both lenses produce sharp and contrasty images
corner to corner and both show incredible levels of detail. At 30X,
there seems to be some slight differences between the two. At every
f-stop, the 16 AE version appears to be a bit darker and slightly more
contrasty than the 22 AE version. However, also at each f-stop, the 22
AE version appears to be sharper than the 16 AE version.
- Comparison 2: 40/1.8 versus 50/1.4 versus 50/1.7. I could not
see any difference between any of these lenses at any aperature from f/4
to f/11. All lenses produce tack sharp corner to corner images and show
incredible detail up to 8x magnification. Furthermore, I could not tell
any difference between the various aperatures at 8X. At 30X, however, I
did notice differences. The 50/1.4 appeared slightly more contrasty and
sharp than the 50/1.7. The difference was not enormous, but it was
obvious when looking through the loupe. Also, though f/8 and f/11 on
both lenses yielded better results than the larger apertures, the
differences were not that great. The results from the 135's however are
quite different. (Note: The 50/1.7 has a bit of internal "dust specs",
but otherwise the glass is completely scratch-free. The 50/1.4 is
perfect, as I found it "new in box").
- Comparison 3: 135/3.2 Hexanon versus 135/3.5 Hexar. WOW!
Now, at 8x I can begin to see grain in both these lenses. At f/4, it
wasn't that hard for me to tell that the 3.2 Hexanon is a better
performer, more contrast and sharper. Unfortunately, I cannot compare
these lenses at other aperatures. The problem was that I forgot to
change the aperature on the Hexar, so as I decreased the shutter speed,
I ended up progressively overexposing (i.e., by keeping the lens at
f/4). I can only say that for the 3.2 Hexanon at lower aperatures it
was not that sharp. However, it got better and better real fast as I
closed the aperature, especially at f/8 and f/11 where it was
superb.
- Comparison 4: 200/4 Hexanon versus 135's. I didn't have many
frames left, two to be exact, so I tested the 200/4 at only f/5.6 and
f/8. As expected, f/8 was much much better than f/5.6, leading me to
believe that, if it is like the 135/3.2, this lens performs best at f/8
and f/11. I don't know if I can legitimately compare the 135 to the 200,
I ended up trying to get roughly the same magnification by looking at
the 135 through the 8x and the 200 through the 4x. I would say, though,
that at f/11 the 135 was more contrasty. The 200, though, was sharp,
but I would have to give the edge to the 135 in overall sharpness when
compared at roughly the same overall magnification.
For additional "reviews" and comparisons, please see the following:
Wulff
Photography's reviews of almost all Hexanon lenses, and some of the
posts at the Konica SLR User's Pages.
Paul Trunfio's Photography Pages