The Konica AR 3.5/80-200 mm is a large and heavy early telezoom constructed in the early 1960s. Telezooms from this era usually have a limited performance, and the Hexanon AR 3.5/80-200 mm is no exception. In addition to the principal limitations of its optical design, there were obviously also manufacturing problems: I have several samples of the lens, and their performance is varying considerably. This is not really a surprise as the optical design was very complicated for its time (17 lenses in 10 elements). Other telezoom lenses from the early 1960s (e. g. the Minolta 3.5/80-160 mm and the early Nikkor 3.5/43-86mm) were not better. Only around 1970 the first really good zoom became available, among them the Nikkor 4.5/80-200 mm and the Canon FD 2.8/35-70mm. They finally did perform nearly as well as contemporary primes, at least when stopped down to f8.
The AR 3.5/80-200mm is as big and heavy as modern 2.8/70-200mm zooms. Its barrel is beautifully machined - especially the latter version with robber focusing grips and zoom ring. The barrel has a built-in tripod socket, and it's made as a two-ring -zoom. The minimum focusing distance (MFD) is 2 m - rather OK for a mid -1960s telezoom, but not comparable to the later 4/80-200mm or 4/70-210mm zooms which usually had a MF of 1.2 m. Focusing and zooming is smooth, and even the aperture ring is well made (much better than with most contemporary Konica AR primes).
The AR 3.5/80-200mm was replaced by the later AR 4/80-200mm UC which not only was smaller and less heavy, but had a MFD of a mere 0.7 m.
MKONICA HEXANON 80-200mm 1:3.5 (17 Linsen in 10 Gruppen) (19XX) |
||
MKONICA HEXANON 80-200mm 1:3.5 (17 Linsen in 10 Gruppen) (19XX) |
* frühes Konica-Telezoom, das aber bis Mitte / Ende 1970er Jahre vermarktet wurde
* Sehr aufwändig gebauter 17-Linser mit dennoch nur mässiger Leistung
* gross und schwer (1.2 kg) wie ein heutiges 2.8/70-200mm
* Zwei äusserlich neuwertige Exemplare der neueren Version getestet => erstes Exemplar an den Bildrändern sehr unscharf, zweites Exemplar etwas besser
* leistungsmässig weit hinter dem Minolta MD / Leica R 4/70-210mm oder dem Canon FD 4/80-200mm zurückliegend
* Abbildungsleistung immer noch schlechter als MC 80-200mm, MC/MD 100-200mm oder MD 75-200mm
* Bei Offenblende @ 200mm weich zeichnend, im Zentrum nicht unangenehmer 60er Jahre Look, Bildqualität nimmt zu den Rändern / Ecken hin aber deutlich ab. Auch bei f11 noch nicht wirklich gut!
* Bei Offenblende @ 80mm deutlicher Randabfall. Abblenden hilft nur begrenzt.
* Abbildungsleistung wesentlich schlechter als MC 80-200mm, MC/MD 100-200mm oder MD 75-200mm