Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon or Konica
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:44 pm    Post subject: Canon or Konica Reply with quote

I have a Canon nFD 50/1,4

Good lens, no more nor less.


I had in the past an hexanon 50/1,7 lens


Which is the better to have?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both and use them on a Sony A7.
The Canon is really superior on wide apertures .
I like in general the rendition of the Canon nFD lenses .


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
I have both and use them on a Sony A7.
The Canon is really superior on wide apertures .
I like in general the rendition of the Canon nFD lenses .


Thank you, very much


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, the Hexanon 1.7/50 is one of the very finest 50s. Only things superior are much more expensive.

Here is one that looks nice and clean for 10ukp:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-AR-50mm-f1-7-Hexanon-lens-with-rear-cap/372187295543?hash=item56a8176f37:g:P8QAAOSwEUdaUhmz

To improve on this lens, you would need to buy something like a Zeiss planar T* 1.7/50, and those are 120-150ukp.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
For me, the Hexanon 1.7/50 is one of the very finest 50s. Only things superior are much more expensive.

Here is one that looks nice and clean for 10ukp:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-AR-50mm-f1-7-Hexanon-lens-with-rear-cap/372187295543?hash=item56a8176f37:g:P8QAAOSwEUdaUhmz

To improve on this lens, you would need to buy something like a Zeiss planar T* 1.7/50, and those are 120-150ukp.


Thank you.

I had a MC pancolar 1,8/50 in M42 in the same time had the Hexanon 50/1,7

Both in Very close level to me eyes.

And the Pancolar is near to the Planar in rendering, as always, to my eyes.

On the other hand, the Canon nFD 50/1,4 surprised me positively.

My question is with which to remain as unique 50 mm lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not keep both?

If you want to keep only one, keep the one you like most. We cannot determine which one that is for you.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I quit like the Konica.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a Konica favorer as well. I have both of these and when I go out the Konica is far more likely to get chosen. The Canon is a fine lens though and there is no significant flaw. It is really just a preference thing IMHO.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it is supposed to be the basis or start in building a collection of lenses around one brand you could also take a look at the other focal lengths both brands have to offer.

There is a lot more available in the Canon FD range, but as you say: it's good, no more no less. Something i personally experienced as well. The Canon lenses are good, but somehow they just don't have the character Konica (and Minolta) lenses have.
So i bought, tried and sold a lot of Canon FD lenses and did the same with a lot of other brands, like Konica, which i still have. The Hexanon 1.4/50 and especially the excellent 1.4/57 are (for me) the ones to keep.

But as said before in this thread: you have to decide what works/feels/looks best for you. No one can tell you what you should like, taste differs! It's all in the eye of the beholder!

Cheers, René!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sjak wrote:
Why not keep both?


If you want to keep only one, keep the one you like most. We cannot determine which one that is for you.




Thank you, very much

Like all the people here do, I tried a lot of lenses of some brands.

In retrospective I like the first Hexanon 50/1,7 (with cold rendering) MFD 45 cm

Now, after a lot of changes, I have the nFD 50/1,4, from there my doubt.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
I quit like the Konica.


Thank you, very much


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jamaeolus wrote:
I am a Konica favorer as well. I have both of these and when I go out the Konica is far more likely to get chosen. The Canon is a fine lens though and there is no significant flaw. It is really just a preference thing IMHO.


The canon has a bit warmer rendition

The hexanon, can be cold colors (V. 1) or a warmer ones (V.2)


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
If it is supposed to be the basis or start in building a collection of lenses around one brand you could also take a look at the other focal lengths both brands have to offer.

There is a lot more available in the Canon FD range, but as you say: it's good, no more no less. Something i personally experienced as well. The Canon lenses are good, but somehow they just don't have the character Konica (and Minolta) lenses have.
So i bought, tried and sold a lot of Canon FD lenses and did the same with a lot of other brands, like Konica, which i still have. The Hexanon 1.4/50 and especially the excellent 1.4/57 are (for me) the ones to keep.

But as said before in this thread: you have to decide what works/feels/looks best for you. No one can tell you what you should like, taste differs! It's all in the eye of the beholder!

Cheers, René!


Thank you, René.

I tried the 1,4/50 but no the 57/1,4

The Minolta MC lenses are very very good ones for me.

Only very prone to CA.

I watched that in MC lenses:

24/2,8

50/1,4

58/1,2

100/2

135/2,8

All very sharp lenses (58/1,2 and 100/2 are really a dream). But the CA from wide open to F/8 is strong to my eyes.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
I am a Konica favorer as well. I have both of these and when I go out the Konica is far more likely to get chosen. The Canon is a fine lens though and there is no significant flaw. It is really just a preference thing IMHO.


The canon has a bit warmer rendition

The hexanon, can be cold colors (V. 1) or a warmer ones (V.2)


I was just the opposite. V1 has a warmer base in contrast to V2 (cold)

Konica AR 50mm f1.7 (v1)




p/s By the way yesterday I received the Canon 28-85 and at the first check obviously the picture is cool in contrast to what is written in the table warm.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergun wrote:
papasito wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
I am a Konica favorer as well. I have both of these and when I go out the Konica is far more likely to get chosen. The Canon is a fine lens though and there is no significant flaw. It is really just a preference thing IMHO.


The canon has a bit warmer rendition

The hexanon, can be cold colors (V. 1) or a warmer ones (V.2)


I was just the opposite. V1 has a warmer base in contrast to V2 (cold)

Konica AR 50mm f1.7 (v1)




p/s By the way yesterday I received the Canon 28-85 and at the first check obviously the picture is cool in contrast to what is written in the table warm.


In my experience (with films) the oldest Konicas are colder rendition.

In that way, I found

24/2,8

28/3,5

35/2,8

50/1,7

85/1,8

135/3,5

On the other hand, I found the V2 with colder rendition in that lenses

28/3,5

40/1,8

50/1,7

50/1,8

135/3,5

That was my experience with film.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
For me, the Hexanon 1.7/50 is one of the very finest 50s. Only things superior are much more expensive.

That's a bit of an urban legend. I have several Hexanons AR 1.7/50mm, and i've compared them on 24MP FF to the corresponding Minolta MD 1.7/50mm lenses as well to the 1.8/50mm Nikkor and the nFD 1.8/50mm. I haven't seen any hint that the Konica is better than the other ones. However, the Minolta MD-III (!) 2/50mm is slightly sharper than the faster lenses mentioned above, and it has zero distortion. Well, not exactly zero, but less than 0.1%, according to patent literature.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To improve on this lens, you would need to buy something like a Zeiss planar T* 1.7/50, and those are 120-150ukp.
I have checked the Zeiss as well, and I can't see much difference tho the other f1.7 lenses. The first Zeiss i got is a bit de-centered, and therefore bought another one which i haven't tested yet.

TrueLoveOne wrote:
If it is supposed to be the basis or start in building a collection of lenses around one brand you could also take a look at the other focal lengths both brands have to offer.

There is a lot more available in the Canon FD range, but as you say: it's good, no more no less. Something i personally experienced as well. The Canon lenses are good, but somehow they just don't have the character Konica (and Minolta) lenses have.
...
Cheers, René!


That's something typical for the Canon nFD lenses - many of them are "duller" than their Minolta counterparts, probably a result of the superior Minolta coating (Minolta SLR lenses were multicoated from the very beginning in 1958, while others followed only in 1970-75):
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/524-28mm-1-2-canon-nfd-konica-ar-minolta-md-iii

But then ... there are FD lenses which were simply extraordinary at their time, eg the nFD 2.8/14mm L, the 3.5/20-35mm L, the 1.4/24mm L, the 1.2/50mm L and the trio 2.8/300 L, 2.8/400 L and 4.5/500 L. Mechanically, the late Minolta MC ("MC-X") and the early MD ("MD-I") are simply the best - smooth focusing, and sturdy construction. The Hexanons are robust as well, but focusing sn't as smooth, and the aperture ring is much more difficult to rotate than with corresponding Rokkors, Nikkors and FDs. The new FDs quite ften have mechanical problems and weaknesses.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No urban legend or myth, I've been using the Hexanon 1.7/50 for 6-7 years on film and digital, so I think I know it's capabilities well.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are three pics taken with the nFD 50/1,4

Not bad.

At F/4.

Good lens

#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. Can some sort of portrait in the open ?
View the background and bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not any portrait with 50 mm lens.

I found that pic only

#1


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
That's something typical for the Canon nFD lenses - many of them are "duller" than their Minolta counterparts, probably a result of the superior Minolta coating (Minolta SLR lenses were multicoated from the very beginning in 1958, while others followed only in 1970-75):
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/524-28mm-1-2-canon-nfd-konica-ar-minolta-md-iii

But then ... there are FD lenses which were simply extraordinary at their time, eg the nFD 2.8/14mm L, the 3.5/20-35mm L, the 1.4/24mm L, the 1.2/50mm L and the trio 2.8/300 L, 2.8/400 L and 4.5/500 L. Mechanically, the late Minolta MC ("MC-X") and the early MD ("MD-I") are simply the best - smooth focusing, and sturdy construction. The Hexanons are robust as well, but focusing sn't as smooth, and the aperture ring is much more difficult to rotate than with corresponding Rokkors, Nikkors and FDs. The new FDs quite ften have mechanical problems and weaknesses.

Stephan


What do you mean "duller" ? If you take from the point of view of artistry Which about 50-mm would You recommend ?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergun wrote:
stevemark wrote:
That's something typical for the Canon nFD lenses - many of them are "duller" than their Minolta counterparts, probably a result of the superior Minolta coating (Minolta SLR lenses were multicoated from the very beginning in 1958, while others followed only in 1970-75):
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/524-28mm-1-2-canon-nfd-konica-ar-minolta-md-iii

But then ... there are FD lenses which were simply extraordinary at their time, eg the nFD 2.8/14mm L, the 3.5/20-35mm L, the 1.4/24mm L, the 1.2/50mm L and the trio 2.8/300 L, 2.8/400 L and 4.5/500 L. Mechanically, the late Minolta MC ("MC-X") and the early MD ("MD-I") are simply the best - smooth focusing, and sturdy construction. The Hexanons are robust as well, but focusing sn't as smooth, and the aperture ring is much more difficult to rotate than with corresponding Rokkors, Nikkors and FDs. The new FDs quite ften have mechanical problems and weaknesses.

Stephan


What do you mean "duller" ? If you take from the point of view of artistry Which about 50-mm would You recommend ?

If you are fine with the lens line-up of Minolta MC/MD, i would go for Minolta. Often colors are more vivid, especially in the Field (not so much difference in the Center). Minolta MC-X and early MD are very smooth focusing.

Canon, on the other hand, has lenses that Minolta has calculated, too, but never released. Such as manual focus 2.8/14mm or 2.8/300mm lenses, for instance.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Minolta MC-X and early MD are very smooth focusing.
The MC 50s have really nice smooth focusing. IMO it nearly approaches the Takumar territory.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand this is the first MD-I (7/5) second MD-II (7/6) ?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes you're right.

But don't forget, the 50/1,4 MD-I is not the same lens than the MC.