28mm shootout - Konica Hexanon vs Vivitar vs Industar 69

[farmer35]

Well, not much of a shootout. Just the 28mm lenses I have. I expected the Industar to easily be the worst performer and it was. I was mainly interested in choosing one of the other two that I liked better and I'm still not sure, but leaning towards the Konica. It seems to be a bit sharper in the center with the Vivitar maybe being a bit better at the edges. Interestingly the Konica seemed to me preferable at f/5.6 over f/8 and the Vivitar was the reverse.

I focused on the top of the silo and went through the different apertures with each lens, hand held. Of course my focusing is a possible variable too. Here are the f/5.6 and f/8 pictures, the apertures I am most likely to use for these lenses, of the Konica and Vivitar.


Konica Hexanon 28mm f/5.6


Konica Hexanon 28mm f/8


Vivitar 28mm f/5.6


Vivitar 28mm f/8

--
Bruce Regier

 

[SimonOL]

Out of these two, I think I prefer the Vivitar. Better edge/corner performance counts for a lot at this focal length IMO. Surprised that the Konica looks so weak in this respect even on m4/3.

Is your Konica the later 5 element version (rubber grip on focus ring)? I found that lens very disappointing and the earlier 7 element version much better.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90962352@N06/

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

considering that on the Micro 4/3 we get to see only the best part of the lens (centre) and that the field of view kind of equals to a 55mm on a FullFrame...

Which version of the Vivitar do you have? what serial number and what f/stop? since there are so many version made some are better than others.

 

[farmer35]

Yes, the Hexanon is the later version with a rubber focusing ring, f/3.5 - f/22.

The Vivitar is Komine made (serial # 28219919), f2.8 - f/16.

I had the Konica and picked up the Vivitar because it has a Minolta mount. One of these days I'll get a Minolta - M43 focal reducer and see how it does as a 20mm lens.

 

[Goethe]

Dear god not another shootout. First of all, the test was done handheld? Whaaaa...?

"Of course my focusing is a possible variable too."

No, it was a definite variable. You cant even begin to come up with meaningful results unless you have the camera attached to a bolted down tripod in the exact same place with a subject that is also static and the same with every shot with controlled lighting.

And thats even ignoring the fact that there are NEVER any meaningful results in tests like this. You would have to test many different copies of each lens to even begin to account for sample variation.

The images you posted are so alike it tells me that these two lenses would have no meaningful difference in the image you create with them. The best possible test is to mount one up to your camera for at least a month and go SHOOT things with it. Not the same static test shots over and over, but attempt to capture interesting and beautiful imagery with them. Use their built in close up abilities and shoot low down to the ground. You gotta have a cat or two out in those barns. Capture them creeping around looking for mice. Or get some cool close ups of the emblems or gauges on that tractor glinting in the sunlight. Or a silhouette of the silo in the fading light. Go create ART with them. Dont worry about trivialities such as edge sharpness. Nobody has ever looked at my images and said "Wow...look at how sharp that is in the corner!". -roll eyes-

Im not ragging on you personally here. Its just that the web is full of meaningless 'test shots' that dont prove anything other then the 'tester' has now idea how to conduct a test that would generate meaningful results. Old lenses are a great way to create some wonderful imagery at a fraction of the cost of modern lenses. But unless the vintage lens has an obvious issue, like the optics are way out of wack, then they are still better image creation devices then most of the photographers using them.

Shoot. Dont test. If you must test, then test your limits as a photographer.

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

Dear god not another shootout. First of all, the test was done handheld? Whaaaa...?

"Of course my focusing is a possible variable too."

No, it was a definite variable. You cant even begin to come up with meaningful results unless you have the camera attached to a bolted down tripod in the exact same place with a subject that is also static and the same with every shot with controlled lighting.

And thats even ignoring the fact that there are NEVER any meaningful results in tests like this. You would have to test many different copies of each lens to even begin to account for sample variation.

The images you posted are so alike it tells me that these two lenses would have no meaningful difference in the image you create with them. The best possible test is to mount one up to your camera for at least a month and go SHOOT things with it. Not the same static test shots over and over, but attempt to capture interesting and beautiful imagery with them. Use their built in close up abilities and shoot low down to the ground. You gotta have a cat or two out in those barns. Capture them creeping around looking for mice. Or get some cool close ups of the emblems or gauges on that tractor glinting in the sunlight. Or a silhouette of the silo in the fading light. Go create ART with them. Dont worry about trivialities such as edge sharpness. Nobody has ever looked at my images and said "Wow...look at how sharp that is in the corner!". -roll eyes-

Im not ragging on you personally here. Its just that the web is full of meaningless 'test shots' that dont prove anything other then the 'tester' has now idea how to conduct a test that would generate meaningful results. Old lenses are a great way to create some wonderful imagery at a fraction of the cost of modern lenses. But unless the vintage lens has an obvious issue, like the optics are way out of wack, then they are still better image creation devices then most of the photographers using them.

Shoot. Dont test. If you must test, then test your limits as a photographer.

 

[zink]

No need to swear, but I agree completely with you.

 

[Goethe]

No need to swear, but I agree completely with you.

Believe me....I have plenty of reasons to swear. This test notwithstanding.

 

[farmer35]

I can't claim a multitude of great pictures with the Industar 69 but I am fond of this one. I have no regrets of buying it as it does have it's unique qualities.







--
Bruce Regier

 

[ShutterNot]

I agree with your assessment of the Konica. Overall the images look very similar, but when you look at the woods on the far end of the field, the Konica shows more detail. To me that makes the Konica the winner.