There are two different optical constructions of the Konica Hexanon AR 3.5/200 mm. The first, a [5/5] design, looks like a Ernostar / Xenotar hybrid; the second one is more Sonnar-like. Both lenses are large and heavy (830 g and 860 g, respectively). The lenses are well built, and the aperture ring is easier to handle than with most Konica AR lenses. Focusing is quite stiff; this is a typical characteristic for most Konica AR primes with rubber focusing grip.

 

The second version is said to be an excellent performer, and Konica itself was emphasizing the outstanding detail resolution of their design. However, if we compare the lens with other contemporary 200 mm lenses (usually f4 designs), it becomes clear that corresponding Canon, Minolta and Nikon lenses may have been even slightly sharper, at least in the inifinity range (see 24MP FF test results below). That said, the AR 3.5/200mm (II) has very litte lateral CAs; it certainly is a very good design, and only the very best 200mm lenses from the 1970s and the 1980s such as the Leitz Apo Telyt 3.4/180mm, the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED (1981) or the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO (1988) can outperform the AR 3.5/200mm by a good margin. As others have mentioned before, the AR 3.5/200mm outperforms the later Hexanon AR 4/200mm: it has sharper cornes and less lateral CAs. However, and this is a surprise, the cheaper Hexar AR 4/200mm (a huge [4/4] design) performs as well as the Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm!

 

Konica Hexanon AR 200mmf35 Var I section Konica AR 200mmf35 VarI

KONICA HEXANON 200mm 1:3.5                 
(5 Linsen / 4 Glieder)

erste Variante

Konica Hexanon AR 200mmf35 Var II section Konica AR 200mmf35 Var III

KONICA HEXANON 200mm 1:3.5                 
(5 Linsen / 4 Glieder)

zweite Variante

 

 

Test results of the three later Konica 200mm lenses (Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm, Hexanon AR 4/200mm, Hexar AR 4/200mm), compared to the Canon FD 4/200mm, the Minolta MC-X 4/200mm and the Nikkor Ai 4/200mm:

 

Test 200mm lenses