Just got back all the shots from my Konica wide angle tests I shot last week. I will be posting them up as soon as I can get them all scanned in (in a few days?) here is some info on the "Battle of the Ultra Wide Angle Lenses" Project:

Lenses: (15mm to 28mm)

Konica Hexanon 15mm f2.8 UC *Soligor 17mm f3.5 Konica Hexanon 21mm f4 Konica Hexanon 24mm f2.8 f16 Version Konica Hexanon 24mm f2.8 f22 Version Konica Hexanon 28mm f1.8 UC

* Yes I know it isn't a Hexanon lens, but it was designed for Architectural (sp?) shooting.

I took shots at f8, f11 and f16 at:

1st Set: Train Station 2nd Set: Brick Wall 3rd Set: Downtown Buildings 4th Set: Closeup of Colourful Downtown Angled Building

So, if you are wondering how each lens did, what they are good at and the difference between them, you don't want to miss this, there isn't another test like it.

Let me know what you think.

Mike.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Answers

Why no 28mm f3.5 lens tested.

Hi Paul (and others),

Thanks for the complement there. :) The reason I didn't include the 28mm f3.5 is that I sold it. haha. No, its true. I saw how much better the f1.8 is and sold it off. :(

For compairson to these ones, I would rate it about 60-70% as good as the 28mm f1.8 UC. (if that helps). If I had one, I would of put it in forsure, one day, I will have to do a Hexanon 28mm f1.8 vs. Hexanon 28mm f3.5 vs. Hexar 28mm f3.5. I have the Hexanon 28mm f1.8 vs. Hexanon 28mm f3.5 up if you are interested already. :)

Thanks for writing.

Mike

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

thanks mike

i saw your "fight" (the 3.5 versus 1.8) on your site. thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

28mm f3.5 versus f1.8

Was it helpful to you? Did you learn anything from the tests? Let me know, I'm interested. :)

Mike

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

is the battle really won?

Thanks again, Mike. I think all these tests you are doing are wonderful, but a user needs to put them into context.

I would have to say that I personally didn't come to the same conclusions you have regarding the 1.8 versus 3.5. Your tests, shots of the same subject, with selected enlargements, showed some difference, but clearly not 10x the difference and i didn't think the 3.5 was blown away.

Furthermore, I find that choosing different films has a much much bigger effect on the overal picture than the 1.8 versus 3.5. Scenics with velvia (or reala) using the 3.5, for example, look much crisper/contrasty than those with the 1.8 using sensia (or superia).

Now, given all that which do I use more? I will admit, I still use the 1.8 more, but all I am saying was that those that don't have one shouldn't feel as though they have to run out and get one.

Paul http://polymer.bu.edu/paul/konica

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001

Is the battle really won?

Hi Paul,

You are correct, these tests are not the "end all" of everything, really it is just a few shots illustrating the differences in the lenses under certain conditions. The 28mm f1.8 UC isn't 10x the different of the 28mm f3.5, but there is quite a difference (I think) looking at the original photos. While top grade quality lenses like the f1.8 vs. the f3.5 as not going to be "oh my god" different, it is the best 28mm Hexanon as one would expect. If the tests showed the f3.5 to be better than Konica would of failed in their target of making the f1.8 UC in this reguard.

The 28mm f1.8 UC is clearly a better lens, but the individual really has to decide if it is worth the extra cash in getting one. It also doesn't help that they are very rare today either.

The film, Konica VX200 ISO is a good film, it was rated as a fine grain and above average contrast. While Velvia super increases its contrast above those of normal films the lens coating would definately play a difference too. The f1.8 is Ultra Coated vs. Normal Coating on the 28mm f3.5, maybe that plays a roll on what the Velvia records, I am not sure. I did shoot some landscapes with the 28mm f1.8 UC and Velvia. Contrast and Colour is all personal though because some will use it for B&W shots. Resolution and sharpness is across the board.

BTW I used Konica VX200 because it is a consumer grade film, nothing really "super" about it, infact, I don't like it too much personally. It was used because it is the "bottom" level of test films and if you can see a difference on this film, then the difference will only increase on top quality films and professional films. (makes sence right?)

Mike. The Photography Blue Book http://frozenmoments.virtualave.net/

Paul: Hey, I don't see a link on your site for mine. haha. ;) (Ok, I'll add your link to my site as well.haha)

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2001