Konica GRII series coverage

[Mark Sawyer]

There seem to be a lot of barrel-mounted Konica Hexinon GRII's coming out of the graphic arts industry for pretty cheap lately, and I was considering a 150mm version for my 8x10. Does anyone know if these lenses have any drawbacks, such as focus shift, limited coverage, loss of sharpness at the edges, need for a center filter, etc.?

Thanks muchly, as usual!

[Jim Galli]

Not sure where the urban myth evolved from that these will cover 810 @ infinity but that's what it is. Same with the Graphic Kowa 150 f9. They reach out to about 280mm + or -. Excellent lenses in every way for 5X7. None of the Konica's will go into a shutter unless you own a machine shop and have lots of time on your hands. They stay very sharp until the last dozen mm.

[Mark Sawyer]

Hey. Jim! Are you sure on that one from personal experience? There's one on Ebay now, advertised as follows:

"This is a very nice Konica Hexanon GRII 150mm lens. This lens easily covers 8x10 at infinity. I have a couple of these and use one for 8x10 shooting."

The seller's ID is "landarc." Don't know anything about him or the lens, but it sounds like he has experience with it. Then again, I've bought "mint condition" lenses with fungus and coating marks, etc., and a 150mm Ultragon that supposedly covered 8x10. (No, it didn't but I'm using it for macro work.)

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, I've shot a 150 GRII for test, regularly use a 210 GRII. The 150 was sharp but a bit low in constrast; a lens hood would help. The 210 is sharp at all distances, contrastier, but could be contrastier still; I have a 210/7.7 Boyer dagor clone that isn't quite as sharp but that has better contrast. My test for contrast is how saturated EPP transparencies are. I use the same shutter behind all of my front-mounted lenses, so I don't think I'm mistaking the effects of subtle variations in exposure for more or less flare.

All lenses mentioned were front-mounted on the same #1, and I shoot 2x3, not 4x5 or larger. I'm not sure front-mounting a 210 GRII on a #1 would work for larger formats.

Re coverage, the dread dagor77 and I have discussed eBay vendors' coverage claims. Many of them exaggerate, a few flat-out lie.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

I just put one on my 'dorff to double check. It almost makes it but not quite. For work in closer than infinity it would likely be useable. Certainly no movements in any case. But it is actually a larger circle than I recalled. It just clips all four corners at infinity.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks for checking, Jim! And Dan too! You guys had exactly the info I wanted. (Well, actually I wanted to hear the GRII is sharp and contrasty and covers 11x14 and mounts easily in a cheap shutter and you know where I can get one for $5 new, but I'll have to settle for accuracy instead...)

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Mark

I have the 210 mmGR2 and the 260mm GR2 could not test them really because need first one mounted onto a Sinar board. But there is an other point wich nobody ever mentioned they have no frontfilter tread. For me not a problem I use them with my Sinar behind the shutter filter tread and filters or with the large front filter system of Sinar but for you it maybe a important point!
There is also a positive point the 210mm and the 260mm have the same mounting flange diameter 72mm, so I need only one Sinar board mounted and can easaly switch them.
Good light.

[Dave Moeller]

Given sample-to-sample variation of the same lens, and given Jim's statement that his 150 just misses the corners of his Deardorff, it's safe to assume that at least some of these lenses will just barely cover 8x10. It's even safer to make that assumption since my sample does...just lucky I guess. Absolutely no room for movements, but the light's definately there if everything's centered. The seller may not be aware of this variation in samples and may actually have mounted one that happened to cover 8x10.

I don't know this seller and haven't dealt with him/her, so I don't know about honesty in this case. But I'd think this is likelier a case of ignorance than dishonesty.

[Dan Fromm]

Dave, does your 150 GRII put light or light and good image in the corners? And how are you evaluating corner sharpness? Off the ground glass or off a negative?

I ask these questions because many people confuse "puts light in the corners" with "covers the format," which really means "puts good image in the corners." With many lenses, the circle illuminated is much larger than the circle with good image quality.

Also, I can't evaluate image quality, especially of dim images, very well on the ground glass. Being human (= mean), I project this inability to others.

Based on my limited experience with Konica lenses, some of it vicarious, I think that Konica's QC has always been good. I'll doubt there's much lens-to-lens variation in coverage until its proven otherwise.

Regards,

Dan

[Dave Moeller]

Dan-

I'm getting decent image in the corners. Not as sharp as the center, certainly, but definately as sharp as my Fujinon 250mm f/6.3. This is on negatives, not off of the ground glass. I accept the image from both of these lenses as covering 8x10 with no movements, and I'm not disappointed in the quality of either of them in the corners.

I do believe that even the best QC doesn't give you exactly the same lens time after time. (This is the reason that process lenses always came with a tag that gave the _exact_ focal length of the lens.) My Konica is so close to the corners (i.e., absolutely no front movements allowed) that it wouldn't take much to convince me that I got very lucky with my sample, but having made the negatives with the camera focused at infinity I can say that my lens definately does cover. (I was doubtful of the claim when I bought the lens, but I wasn't worried as I'd intended to use it for closer focusing. When I got it I had to try it at infinity...and damned if it didn't cover. Again, _barely_, but it did cover.)

Dave