[.a.t.]

Just for fun.


This Konica brochure appears to be from the early 1970s and came to me as part of a photo literature lot. I have no experience with Konica, but metal, manual focus lenses are always a feast for my eyes!

Some tidbits:

I didn't know that Konica made adapters for M42, Exakta and Nikon lenses...

And Re the 800mm f/8 : "21lb, 6oz" (9.7 kg) !!
That must be a misprint?! The internet suggests the 800 was merely 12lb !

Bon appétit.

(Click on the images for a larger size.)

[ffking]

A trip down memory lane

It seems to me that when SLRs became everybody cameras, a lot of the system camera nature was lost - now that smart phones are the everybody cameras, I wonder if DSLRs will start getting more specialist systems again. (I know Canikon still make some of the stuff, but the trend has been the other way)

[Sliver-Surfer]

Konicas are good vintage lenses but I like Pentax and Nikon counterparts of that era more

[.a.t.]

A trip down memory lane
. . .

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Konicas are good vintage lenses but I like Pentax and Nikon counterparts of that era more

Thanks for looking.

[sunny16]

I appreciate you sharing. While Pentax has always been my main system, I had a relative gift me a Konica camera and some lenses over ten years ago. That was just before mirrorless launched and all the old lenses could be adapted to modern cameras so the ebay prices were still very low and not a lot of info was available. I had some fun experiencing a different system but ended up selling most of the lenses after a couple years (did get to try a few on the original Sony A7 and they definitely had their own look to them.)

[Wasp]

Thanks for sharing this. It is quite interesting.

Two things caught my eye. The oddball focal lengths of the standard lenses - nobody else ever made a 52mm lens or a 57mm lens. Or did they? If clueless internet lens sellers are to be believed, there are plenty of 49mm and 52mm UV lenses, but I digress.

The other one is the adapters for fitting the lenses of other makers - quite a wide range. Unmatched by any other, I believe.

The lineup is impressive but I fear that the ad copy contains a lot of hype. The contemporary ranges of Nikon, Canon and Pentax simply dwarfs the one shown here.


On that note, modern day reviewers love bashing Pentax for a supposed lack of choice in lenses. I believe the current Pentax catalog compares favorably to the above, but I haven't compiled a check list yet.

[pathdoc]

I love these old brochures.

I find it interesting that a lot of the smaller primes have a focus ring very reminiscent of the super Takumars, and Konica is not the only one. It seems to have been a particular style of the period, and I'm sorry that we've lost it (though I believe the DA20-40 pays it homage). It would be interesting to surmise what sort of direction Konica would have taken had they been able to survive as a high-end camera manufacturer.

[Wasp]

The reason that Konica was able to offer those adapters was the short flange focal distance of 40.5mm, the shortest of any 35mm SLR system ever made. It 'beat' the next one - Canon FD - by 1.5mm. Kinda sneaky, when you think about it.

PS: Confusingly, Konica called it the F-mount, after the first camera that had it. Nothing to do with Nikon.

[pentax360]

Thanks for posting this, very cool

I have a Hexanon 57mm 1.4, it seems like a nice lens.

[pathdoc]

The reason that Konica was able to offer those adapters was the short flange focal distance of 40.5mm, the shortest of any 35mm SLR system ever made. It 'beat' the next one - Canon FD - by 1.5mm. Kinda sneaky, when you think about it.

PS: Confusingly, Konica called it the F-mount, after the first camera that had it. Nothing to do with Nikon.

The downside of this, of course, is that Konica glass is incompatible with Pentax (or any other SLR) without lensed adaptors. Point to bear in mind if I ever meet any.

[boriscleto]

The reason that Konica was able to offer those adapters was the short flange focal distance of 40.5mm, the shortest of any 35mm SLR system ever made. It 'beat' the next one - Canon FD - by 1.5mm. Kinda sneaky, when you think about it.

PS: Confusingly, Konica called it the F-mount, after the first camera that had it. Nothing to do with Nikon.

Konica's first mount was the F-mount. But when they released the Auto-reflex they change the mount, and called it AR.

I have the M42 and Exakta adapters for K/AR, they aren't all that expensive. But the Nikon F adapter is rare, it commands a premium price on eBay...I don't think I've ever seen the adapter for Konica F on eBay.

www.buhla.de - Konica Lens Mount Adapters

[boriscleto]

The downside of this, of course, is that Konica glass is incompatible with Pentax (or any other SLR) without lensed adaptors. Point to bear in mind if I ever meet any.

If Pentax ever does decide to enter the short register mirrorless market...

Surprisingly Konica lenses don't command the premium that some manual focus lenses do (Olympus, Nikon, Canon) other than some of the wide angle lenses (21 & 24mm). The Hexagon lenses for Leica screw mount are another story...The 40mm F1.8 is a really nice pancake, but it is so common that it's a lot cheaper than the Pentax M 40/2.8...

[.a.t.]

Thanks to all for your comments!

[.a.t.]

Just today I remembered I have a Pentax brochure from the end of the M42 era - about 1975, I think. So it's a couple years newer than the Konica brochure. But it's close enough to give a reasonable comparison of each company's lens lineup in the early to mid 1970s.

First, two Pentax pages. And then the two Konica pages listing their lenses (the same images as in my original post).

Pentax:





Konica: