Talk:Hexar lenses

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Hexar lenses. Click here to start a new topic.


Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.


Military lenses

I have in hand a Konishiroku Hexar ser. I 25cm/4.5 serial nº 7120 barrel lens (will shoot and upload images this weekend). It' clearly a military lens, possibly for the F-8 equivalent. Am I right in assuming that given its 'Konishiroku' instead of Rokuoh-Sha it's manufactured after 1943? Somehow a post 1945 date, although possible, does not feel right Dirk

Yes I think that these lenses marked Konishiroku were made between 1943 and 1945 for military use. I have a picture of the F-8 copy showing exactly the same mounting plate as on your own lens. --rebollo_fr 18:17, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Univex Mercury

This page doesn't mention the Univex Mercury, which was available with a Hexar f/2.0 lens.

We may add a disambig mention, but the Mercury's Hexar was definitely not made by Konishiroku. --rebollo_fr 18:17, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Serial numbers

I altered the following sentence:

The Hexar Ser.II 7.5cm f/3.8 pictured in this page in a Compur-Rapid shutter and used with the body of a Semi Pearl indicates that lens may have been developed for civilian applications, before it was adapted for military applications.

and removed the corresponding footnote:

Note that the civilian serial number, set in a well manufactured, silver mounting, is 4154, while known serial numbers of the military specimens are 4345 (WW2 Military Japanese Aerial Camera SK-100), 4473 (Konishi website) and 4779 (as depicted on this page)

because I'm not sure that serial numbers of Hexar lenses were applied in a single sequence, hence I don't think we can compare 4154 on the 7.5cm f/3.8 with say 4345 on a 20cm f/3.5. For example I have pictures of on a Konishiroku Hexar 50cm f/5 no.3152, to compare with no.4473 (or 4475) on the Rokuoh-sha Hexar Ser.II 75mm f/3.5 here. But I may be wrong, and this is why I keep the information here for future record. --rebollo_fr 08:40, 12 July 2010 (EDT)