PDA

View Full Version : Konica GRII; any drawbacks?



Mark Sawyer
4-Mar-2005, 14:23
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
4-Mar-2005, 14:52
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
4-Mar-2005, 15:56
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
4-Mar-2005, 16:31
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
4-Mar-2005, 17:15
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
4-Mar-2005, 22:30
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
5-Mar-2005, 02:31
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
5-Mar-2005, 04:12
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
5-Mar-2005, 05:56
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
5-Mar-2005, 10:42
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

landarc
5-Mar-2005, 11:35
I use a Konica 1500mm lens at infinity on 8x10 and it covers. I have the negs to prove it! I have good sharp negs that are sharp out to the corners. I was quite surprised when I mounted up the lens that it covers but it does. I also have extensive knowledge of process lenses and have used alot of them. The apo-gerogon 150mm does not cover 8x10. The agfa repromaster 150mm does not cover. The g-claron 150mm does not cover. No other process lenses of 150mm focus length cover 8x10 that I have tried except the Konica. I can scan in the negs to show you if you need.

Dan Fromm
5-Mar-2005, 11:43
Dave and Landarc, thanks very much for the clarifications.

Regards,

Dan

Mark Sawyer
6-Mar-2005, 10:56
So I guess the answer regarding coverage is "sometimes..." I'm really surprised that there are significant variations in coverage, considering the manufacturing tolerances involved in a modern high-quality process lens. What can be changing enough to through it off that measureably? Lens elements? Alignment? Barrel tolerences?

Anyone know if there's a focus shift when stopping down with these lenses?

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2005, 13:48
Mine stay in focus when stopped down.

Cheers,

Dan

Dave Moeller
6-Mar-2005, 16:44
No focus shift on mine either.

Mark Sawyer
7-Mar-2005, 14:31
Well, I bought Landarc's lens, so look back here in about a month and I'll post on how it does. BTW, the infamous Dagor77 said his (completed auction) covered with 1 1/2" of front rise to spare. Amazing they can vary that much... Thanks again, all!

CP Goerz
23-Mar-2005, 09:15
Regarding Dan Fromms constant comments of my lens coverage 'claims'...As I have written to him on numerous occasions I DO NOT pull coverage figures from my @ss, I actually test the lenses on a camera. Who is in a better position to decide then what a lens can and cannot do? You with your company spec sheets or me with the lens?



CP Goerz

Dan Fromm
23-Mar-2005, 11:11
Andrew, calm down and read what I wrote. I didn't say that YOU exagerate or lie. You and I have discussed the question and have agreed that some eBay vendors do. I haven't named them in public, and probably won't.

If you want to see flat lies, look at the tripe that's written about MP-4 Tominons' coverage. Much of it is totally false, or perhaps insufficiently hedged, and goes miles beyond your wildest claims.

Yours for cold showers all 'round,

Dan

CP Goerz
23-Mar-2005, 16:23
hey D,

Sometimes the speed of my thoughts are slower(almost unimagineable!) than my typing fingers, I didn't mean to sound as though I was attacking you, jusdt agreeing with you as we have in past E's. Sorry if it came out looking otherwise.

CP Goerz

Mark Sawyer
5-Apr-2005, 12:02
Epilogue: I put the 150mm GRII on my 8x10 and shot a negative focused at infinity yesterday. It was set at f/45, the smallest available aperture. I was very careful to center the lens, and it just barely nips each corner (inside the film guides) by about 1/8 of an inch. Contrast is good (I'd say "typical" for a modern multicoated lens); sharpness falls off a little towards the corners in the last half-inch to inch of image. So in this case, no, the GRII doesn't quite cover 8x10 at infinity. (Jim Galli had it exactly right on all counts.)

I also did a close-up test shot, which I haven't developed yet. Maybe I have another macro lens...

Dan Fromm
5-Apr-2005, 17:19
Its likely to be good as a macro lens, Mark. I've shot my 210/9 GRII against my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS at f/11, f/16, f/22 at 1:2, the MicroNikkor's highest magnification on its own mount. I don't rate the 200/4 manual focus MicroNikkor as a great lens, but in any case the 210 GRII beat it handily. Sharper, crisper, ... Got the same result at ~ 35 feet.

Some LF lenses really sharper than some lenses for 35 mm.

Cheers,

Dan

Mark Sawyer
5-Apr-2005, 19:27
Thanks for the words of encouragement, Dan. I just developed the negative and it looks quite nice, except for a little dust spot on the film. You'd think by now manufacturers would have come up with a lens that keeps dust out of the filmholder...

I'll see how it prints tomorrow...

landarc
6-Apr-2005, 06:07
Mark I am sorry that the lens does not cover. You can send it back to me and I'll send you the one I have been using that does cover. One thing I had to do with mine is mount the lens up via the large iris ring. It's not a problem as the lens is very small and light. I put a recess on the lens board and mounted the lens from the iris ring after tapping a few holes in it. This allows the lens to sit further back in the camera, like a recessed lens board. When I first mounted the lens using the flange the bellows on my camera clipped the image. Anyway if you want you can send me back the lens you bought, and I'll send you the one I have used.

I don't like to be the perpretator of false coverages as this is a real problem on ebay. There are optical and mathematical reasons Schneider and other manufacturers quote specific image cirlcles. When you go beyond them you may get image but you are in a zone where abberations can be assured. Thats why they state the coverage in the first place! Beyond what they state the image is NOT corrected. Now for those of us who do contact prints on large format the abberations may not be noticable in a contact print. All that being said if you are absolutly critical about image quality you would never use a process lens at infinity. Symmetrical lenses such as process lenses do correct for 3 abberations by being symmetrical. BUT when you focus on distant objects these abberations are NOT corrected. This is why modern lenses are not symmetrical. Most modern lenses are almost symmetrical but not quite. Anyhow I would never use a process lens at infinity for commercial work and you shouldn't either. The konica 150mm lens that I have used produces satisfactory images for contact printing on 8x10 for bw work.

Mark Sawyer
8-Apr-2005, 12:16
Landarc- we can switch lenses or I don't mind hanging onto the one I recieved as a macro lens. I'm pretty happy with the initial negative and print I got out of it using it at 1:1, so I don't regret buying it and feel it was still a good deal. I was hoping it would also make a decent field lens, and I could still use it as one and just trim down the prints a little. But I'm probably better off spending way too much on something with enough coverage to allow some movements.

If I ever win the lottery, I'm buying a whole set of XL lenses just to crack walnuts with...

landarc
11-Apr-2005, 20:19
Mark, sounds good to me. I'll just keep the one I have I guess. I will be getting another one soon and I'll compare that to the others. Its also possible that my shot was a hair closer than infinity focus. I have only done the one image as I don't need a 150 on 8x10 very often. It is probably asking too much for a very inexpensive process lens like this to produce commercial qulaity negs. Anyhow the lens is decent, inexpensive and produces a good image considering what it is. I think the corners are good but certainly you'll get better results w/ the huge sa and grandagons. It is quite disconcerting that a modern or recent lens like this has such differing coverages. The manufactuing must have been very poor. Or the lens design changed a bit over time. Owell the search for good covering 150mm for 8x10 at a reasonable price continues! You may notice that the 165 SA prices continue to drop on the web. They get less expensive all the time.....

Kerry L. Thalmann
12-Apr-2005, 14:27
Owell the search for good covering 150mm for 8x10 at a reasonable price continues!

Have you considered a 6" Wollensak Ext. WA? While it might not be as cheap as a barrel mount process lens, it comes mounted in a shutter and has enough coverage to allow some movements on 8x10. Prices are generally in the $250 - $350 range, depending on condition and bidder enthusiasm.

For more info (and some pics), see this thread:

Age of Wollensak 6" (159mm) Extreme W.A. (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501292.html)

Kerry

Mark Sawyer
12-Apr-2005, 15:42
Hey, Kerry! I've got an older (serial #12252) Wollensak 6 1/4 " f12.5 EWA that I really like a lot for contact printing, which is what I do 98% of the time. But I've noticed when I enlarge the print to even 11x14", it starts to fall apart. I've been watching for a later one, hoping it might be sharper than mine, (wouldn't mind the coatings either). My fault for getting that stupid 8x10 enlarger...

But I would consider other lenses too. There doesn't seem to be a lot of choice in that focal length range (150-165mm.) The GRII "almost" covers w/ no movements, the 165mm Angulon covers w/ very slight movements and softening at the corners, the 150mm Nikkor SW costs a fortune...

Other suggestions are welcome, as are comments on how sharp other Wollensak 6 1/4's are.

Kerry L. Thalmann
12-Apr-2005, 16:01
Mark,

There aren't a lot of options for affordable 8x10 lenses this wide. A newer (as in post-WWII) coated Wolly is probably your best bet.

The 165mm Schneider Angulon will also hit the corners of 8x10 when stopped down. These are plentiful and affordable on eBay. Look for a Linhof selected model, or a late sample from the mid to late 1960s. Other than a special production run that was made in 1978, most 165mm Angulons come in No. 2 Compur shutter and take 58mm filters (the 1978 batch fits in a Compur/Copal No. 3 and takes 67mm filters).

The 6" WA Dagor will also cover 8x10 stopped down, but cult status has driven the prices through the roof.

The 158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb, would be an excellent choice, if you could find one. Very small and compact with 100 degree coverage. Originally supplied in a barrel, but I have seen one or two remounted into a No. 1 Compur. Rumor is that Cooke may introduce an updated version of this lens. I, for one, hope they do. While a new lens won't be nearly as affordable as these 40 - 50 year old compact wide angles, it will have the advantages of multicoating and a modern shutter.

Personally, I am shooting 4x10. So, I can get by with a bit less coverage. It sounds like the 150mm GRII would work for 4x10. Currently I have several little 150s that I plan to test to chose the best one for 4x10. I've been shooting with a 150mm f9 Graphic-Kowa that covers 4x10, but probably not 8x10 (image circle is usually listed as 290mm - seems about right based on my use). I also have a 150mm f6.8 APO Kyvytar and 150mm f9 Computar that reportedly came from the same factory as the Graphic-Kowa. And, even though they appear to be identical, in some focal lengths, the Computar is reported to cover more than the Graphic-Kowa. If that's true, the 150mm Computar just might cover 8x10 (but I remain skeptical until I test it myself).

Kerry

landarc
18-Apr-2005, 13:14
Mark I have figured out the coverage issue with the Konica 150mm lens. The front element is threaded info into the lens barrel and simply held there with adhesive. I removed one of mine to see if the lens could go into shutter. When I realized it could not easily go into shutter I realized the element group threaded much further into the barrel then it did origianlly. So by moving the lens groups closer together you increase the lenses coverage. I do not recommend you do this as the lens is probably factory set and optimized where its at right now. Anyway the lens coverage can be increased if you screw the front grouping further down the barrel. This would account for the many different lens coverages given from different people. So we are all correct. The lens coverages are all different due to the poor lens construction and the fact that the inner air space is probably different with each one of these lenses. I will have to shoot some more film with the lens groups closer together and I would imagine this might cause some quality problems. Then again it may not considering the lens is made for 1:1 and we are using it at infinity or there abouts . I will have to consult the phd lens designers on this one, to get their opinion of this and the effects it may have on image quality at infinity focus. It may be just fine to tighten up the lens spacing considering were are already using the lens out of its normal optimized range.

Lachlan 717
23-Jan-2011, 02:32
I know that this is an old thread, and seems to be directed to the 150mm, but can anyone let me know if the Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm covers 7x17"?

Thanks,