r/VintageLenses

I love my panda-style Konica Hexanon 57mm ƒ/1.4. The lens looks fantastic, it produces stunning background transitions, I find it’s one of the best lenses in my collection for black/white photography, the lens stands out as producing rather cool colors, and it can produce significant cyan fringing even in background transitions, which can be a fun creative tool.

So with my stepson’s girlfriend’s birthday coming up, I decided to buy her one for her black/white film photography. The panda-style ones were beyond my budget, so I got her a black one, which was made about 3 years later than mine, in 1972–1973. Now I became curious: Is there an optical difference between the two lenses? As it turns out, yes!

My observations:

• Similarities: Let’s get this out of the way; they render identical in terms of the background transitions, sharpness, and contrast. That’s a good sign that they didn’t cheapen out on the optics.
• Colors: Although the difference is subtle, this one is pretty significant for me. I was excited about my Hexanon 57mm ƒ/1.4 for leaning very cool, which makes it stand out from all my other lenses. But seeing the photos side by side, I can’t help but prefer the slightly warmer colors (more neutral colors, really) of the black version. You can see it in the roof tiles of the bird feeders in the first image, but more significantly you can see it in the yellow hues of the sunset and the brown tones of the fence in the third image—and again, you can see it in the roof tiles as well. The yellow hues of the sunset lean more green and cool in the panda version, while they lean a bit more orange in the black version. I guess it’s easy enough to adjust, but I do think the colors of the black version look better.
• Flare: This one surprised me; the black version produces flares while the panda one doesn’t (see the 4th image)! Granted, it’s not the most magnificent flare, and I definitely wouldn’t grab this lens if I wanted to produce nice flares, but I still think it’s a nice creative tool, and it upsets me that my panda lens isn’t able to produce any.
• Cyan fringing: Usually color aberrations are unwanted, but this lens can produce such heavy cyan fringing—even in unexpected places like in the background transitions—that it actually excites me. So how do the two lenses compare? I actually haven’t been able to take photos with cyan fringing in the background yet; but as you can see in the last image, the cyan and green outlining around the subject is equally significant in both lenses. If you look closely at the central roof tile, however, you can see the black version produces red and cyan fringing around the textures, which I’m not seeing in the panda version. I feel that’s the one upside of the panda version, as I don’t find fringing around textures desirable.

——

Conclusion

Now I feel I have a dilemma. I think the panda version is designed better, the silver aperture ring looks more attractive, the figures and aperture marker look crisper, and the nameplate and its (larger) font look better. But optically, I prefer the black one!

I don’t know which one I want to keep for myself. I’m leaning towards the black one, as I think it produces 5% better photos (50% better in conditions where you can expect flares). But I find it genuinely painful to give up my panda lens! Besides, in conditions where it doesn’t flare, I can easily color grade it to get the exact same look as the black version.

Which lens would you go for?

PS: I thought my lens was called Konica Hexanon AR 57mm ƒ/1.4, but I noticed today that the nameplate on the panda version does not actually include ‘AR’! It does on the black version. Does anyone know what that is about?

This was screwed onto an M42 Domiplan. Any idea what mount it is?

The first image features the native Fuji 10-24mm f/4.0 lens, followed by Helios, Yashica, Soligor, Mir 1-B, Porst, and Revuenon. Each lens has its own history, and each is distinct in its own way. The color temperature, shutter speed, and aperture were identical across all shots: 5600K, 1/60s, and f/5.6

Hi everyone,

I found these cameras in a box, I got them at goodwill years ago and forgot about them. I don’t know anything about cameras. Thoughts on these?

Edit: I did do some research on them but I’ve never even used a camera before other than on my phone. Please be nice.

Portrait of a robberfly in extreme macro

175 stacking images

Yesterday I picked all this up for $120 cad, the instamatic has its black leather case in really nice condition but I’m only interested in the lenses, plus no idea what these are that came with.

So first a Scnheider-Kreuznach Xenon 50mm f/1.9
A Scnheider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 200mm f/4.8

And these others, the ring says „R”1:3/29.5 another one but 2 instead, then this reverse lens hood thing.

I was really really hoping to convert these onto my Nikon z but not seeing really any converters unfortunately because at the time of purchasing I wasn’t familiar with or that they were dkl mount.

I’m just looking for more advice and info on these

Externally the lens is honestly beautiful and mechanics feel excellent. Focus and aperture are smooth. But under strong flashlight inspection I found:

- normal internal dust

- some coating/cleaning marks

- slight haze maybe

- and this small white branching/web-like patch near the edge of one internal element

I attached macro photos.

I’m trying to determine:

- active fungus?

- old fungus residue?

- balsam separation?

- coating damage?

- normal vintage wear?

Important:

This is ONLY really visible under intense flashlight + macro phone camera angles. Barely noticeable otherwise.

I know flashlight tests can massively exaggerate defects in vintage lenses, so I’d love opinions from experienced Takumar/vintage lens users.

Main questions:

1. What do you think this actually is?

2. Would you keep or return at around $286?

3. Is this likely to noticeably affect image quality/video contrast?

4. Does this look stable/inactive or potentially growing?

Thanks.

50mm sunmicron v3 from ebay. Was told about dust but this looks to me like early stages of fungus. What do you guys think?

I’ve found this 3 lenses for 1100 usd in FB Marketplace
Carl Zeiss Planar T 85mm f/1.4 ZE*
Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.4 ZE*
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 28mm f/2 ZE*
Is it worth it?

Strange concentric pattern of small dots? Its also appeared on the 32mm

Hey everyone!

I wanted to share a project that’s been keeping me busy at the workbench for a while. As many of you know, the legendary Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.7 (C/Y)* is famous for its incredible micro-contrast, rendering, and sharpness. But for Nikon DSLR shooters, using it has always meant either sacrificing infinity focus with cheap adapters or sticking strictly to manual focus.

Well, not anymore. I have officially finished modifying and calibrating a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.7 converted to native Nikon F-mount with full Autofocus support!

🛠️ How it works:

AF Type: It utilizes an internal mechanical coupling to work flawlessly with Nikon’s classic in-body AF motor (screwdrive / отвертка).

Compatibility: Fully operational on body series like the D200, D300, D7000, D700, D800, D850, D3, D4, D5, etc.

The famous T* coating and optical formula remain completely untouched.

Now, classic Nikon DSLR lovers can finally experience the true Zeiss rendering with the speed of autofocus.