Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f2.5 - lens review

 Since my review of the 40mm f1.8 everyone has been telling me to check out the 135mm, but as I soon found out, there are multiple versions of it and the general consent seems to be that the f3.5 version is the one to get, sharper, lighter, more compact and so on. Obviously, the only one I could find was the f2.5, but I got it anyway. Since I bought it, I've found myself coming back to it time and time again, it's a lens that keeps giving, I really enjoy shooting it and, as you probably all know by now, I prefer longer lenses to short and wide ones, and this one really reminds me of my Tokina 135mm f2.8, they are really similar although this is a bit bigger, but we will discuss more about that in a dedicated video, if you want to.

Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f2.5


 Anyway, this “big boi”, as I like to call it, has a metal body and weighs around 650 grams. It is 93mm long when focused to infinity, 118mm when extended and when you pop out the built-in sun hood it gets to 134mm; the front thread has a 62mm diameter. See why I call it “big boi”?

 The iris has six rounded blades and the aperture is clicked and it goes from f2.5 to f16, plus auto exposure past that. The focusing ring is big and textured and it turns some 200 degrees; minimum focusing distance is 1,2 meters, shorter than average.

 While it is not one of those giant lenses, it sure can get be tiring to bring it along for many hours, trust me, I did it, but the results are worth the effort. Image quality between f2.5 and f4 it's a little bit on the soft side, less contrasting, less sharp, but from f4 on it gets really sharp. Background blur it's really soft and creamy at f2.5 and gets a little bit sharper with more defined boke at f4, while still being very pleasant. Colors are obviously very comparable to the 40mm f1.8, but where the 40mm f1.8 suffers from a bit of blooming wide open, this 135 still has a hint of glowing, but it's way more contained. The minimum focusing distance of 1.2 meters is actually better then the f3.5 version, which, according to my catalog, can only focus up to 1.5 meters close. Chromatic aberration is really present and visible at f2.5, but it gets more controlled by f4, still a little bit present, but less prominent; it hasn’t really been an issue for me, so far. Flaring didn't showed up in the pictures and videos I took so far.

 Overall, what is my impression of these lens? It's good, a bit too heavy for my likings, but the images it produces are pleasant and, in general, it’s a dependable lens.

 As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask in the comments and don’t forget to check the full video for all the samples.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yashica 135mm f2.8 ML - Lens review

Soligor 28mm f2.8 C/D - vintage lens review

Canon FD 100mm f2.8 - Lens review