nikon f80 + 35mm f2 afd vs konica hexar af

[PatB]

Hi all,

I have been considering getting the konica as portable

everyday camera. As nice as the hexar af might be, I

simply wonder whether I would get equally good results

with the nikon setup (I already have an f80 and the

mentioned 35mm afd lens), without the hexar's

limitations such as 1/250 max shutter speed.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the two lenses

quality wise? They seem to be similar in size and weight.

Is the comparison even fair?

 

Thanks!

 

Pat

[User_502260]

<p>This is a difficult comparison. The Nikkor is an SLR lens and has closer focusing. It also had to be designed in a way that the rear of the lens clears the reflex mirror. This design did not have to be used in the Hexar. When the Hexar cane out I thought it was odd that the top shutter speed was 1/250. My father's Konica Auto S1.6 from 1968 had a top speed of 1/500. All equipment decisions involve compromises based on size and utility. The F80 with the 35/2 Nikkor is a much more flexible camera/lens combination but is larger and heavier. Both set-ups can give you good results. You just have to decide whether portability is more important than versatility. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I don't know the Konica, but have heard good things about it, and it could be an improvement. I'm not a fan of the Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD. Tried one out that was offered used, but returned it. I thought it might have been a bad copy or one that had been damaged, but at least two reviews have commented on its lack of sharpness in the corners. For example, Bjørn Rørslett <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html"><strong>mentions that in passing</strong></a> at the end of his section on the 35mm f/2 Nikko-O, (You'll have to search for it a little.) And Photozones<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/444-nikkor_afd_35_20_ff"><strong> is pretty critical of the lens</strong></a>. I'd try the Konica. See if you like it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>My experience is exactly as Hector's; none with the Konica, but I have the AF-D 35mm f/2. It is not a bad lens for some applications, in fact mine if very good at f/4-f/11 (with the note that I never check the extreme corners a lot, I've never been to worried about that). But the wide apertures are soft and lacking a bit in contrast; it doesn't have a particularly charming or interesting either. All in all, for its price, it's just not great value.<br>

On the other hand - you already have this lens, if you're satisfied with it, by all means who would we be to tell you otherwise? The lack of faster shutterspeeds of the Konica would be a great drawback for me; I tend to use wider apertures often and with only 1/250th available, I wouldn't be able to. So it depends on your style a bit whether this would be a fitting camera.</p>

[PatB]

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

While the lens is not stellar it's an acceptable performer.

I used an olympus xa for a while as a portable camera

and while it was AMAZING for portability the lens'

performance left a lot to be desired unless seriously

stopped down, which sort of goes against having a

bright lens if you can't use it wide open. The Nikon

35mm f2 afd is much better despite lacking contrast at

f2 and it improves further at f2.8 and is pretty good at f4

even in the corners.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lack of coffee... there are an awful lot of missing words and typos in my post. Sorry about that!</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I don't think the question here is the F80 v. the Hexar. The question is an SLR vs a compact camera. That's the decision you have to make. As for which lens is sharprter, the 35 you have on the F80 is a perfectly fine lens. If you're Ok with the camera but don't like the lens, I would swap it for any of the many, many lenses made for the Nikon rather than looking for another camera.</p>

[PatB]

<p>That's exactly it Craig.<br>

F80 + 35mm f2 is fairly compact by SLR standards. It's a nice package: good size, smallish lens, AF, great meter etc. but not anywhere as pocketable as the Olympus XA. I think the Hexar AF, although a bit smaller still, will also be too large to be considered a viable alternative size-wise. I've tried using the F80 past the last couple of days as an "everywhere camera" and it simply did not work - it's too large, too conspicuous, like you're trying too hard... <br>

I am digressing a bit but I have been using bulky cameras all my life and the XA experience was really inspiring. I've always dismissed point-and-shoot sized cameras because of lack of controls, poor lens quality, unpredictable AF, shutter lag and suddenly I came across the Olympus which offers everything a photographer could wish for casual, yet creative, shooting. However, as ideal as it may be ergonomically, I found the lens lacking and definitely overrated (that's why Lomography has never appealed to my taste) so I am now looking at getting a Contax T and/or a Minox 35 camera which are truly compact, offer good amount of manual control and are an improvement over the XA optically. <br>

<br />Thanks again for your thoughts guys!</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Patrick -- if you liked the XA, have you tried the Olympus Stylus Epic? I have one and it's very tiny and pocket sized with a super sharp 35mm 2.8 lens that focuses down to about a foot. Spot metering and a couple of other options. It had a reputation as the "professional's point and shoot" much like the XA. It was very popular. When Helmut Newton died, the wirephoto of him that was used with his obit everywhere showed him using a Stylus Epic. I used mine for years both for family snapshots and serious photos until I picked up a Canon Powershot G15 digital. Sounds like you want film but I also highly recommend the G15 or the newer G16.</p>

[PatB]

<p>Yes, I am after a compact film camera. I am familiar with the mju series, thanks. They are well regarded but I've crossed it out off my list as it lacks manual aperture control. What's the shutter lag on these by the way?<br>

G15 is a good recommendation but it's quite large. I have an even smaller panasonic lumix lx3 as a digital p&s camera as it is very compact. I'll try to find a contax t as the concept is identical to the xa with improved optics and also try to get a minox 35 for even more fleeting situations.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

Mju does have a touch of shutter lag. Half

second maybe? Not as bad as some p&s but

you could miss the "decisive moment" with it.

Better for things that sit still.

 

Contax T is nice. Newspaper friend used one

for a while after back surgery when doctor

wouldn't let him carry his bag of Nikons. Kept

it clipped to his belt.

[PatB]

All info much appreciated Craig, thanks.

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Another possibility would be to consider a Contax G2 (interchangeable lens AF, rangefinder style) with its 35mm f2. </p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Sounds like a case of "the grass is greener." Do you need 1/250 for daylight fill flash or a "silent mode"? If not, just stay with the F80.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have an F80. Like it a lot.<br /> If it were me and I didn't like the 35mm f/2, I'd just pop some other lens on the F80 body. That's what the interchangeable mount is all about.</p>

[gaute_solheim1]

<p>Have the Hexar and used it as my only camera for some years beween a pentax slr and a Nikon dslr I got in 2006. No other camera has given me the percentage of keepers I get from the Hexar. It focus in a blink, even in the dark, and you get those shiny wet eyes. Built like a tank, almost weather sealed with a filter, and fits in the pocket of my jacket. What more could you wish for (except when you want something else than 35 mm)?</p>