Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

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

Fuji X-E1 and the Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:38 pm    Post subject: Fuji X-E1 and the Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.4 Reply with quote

Need some more testing.
But first impressions :
* Seems very sharp stopped down a bit.
* Very well built
* less contrast than fe the Zeisses.


Cross by G.Don, on Flickr


The Cross by G.Don, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a bit soft WO but very sharp stopped down, and a shame I don't use nifty fifty's much on full frame.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
It's a bit soft WO but very sharp stopped down, and a shame I don't use nifty fifty's much on full frame.

On a FF those nifty fifties become a nice standard lens. You should try it:)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterinex wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
It's a bit soft WO but very sharp stopped down, and a shame I don't use nifty fifty's much on full frame.

On a FF those nifty fifties become a nice standard lens. You should try it:)


Ah I should have said "I have this lens also" Wink Well I don't use my older Minolta f1.4 or Canon FD f1.4...much either, but will take one with me if I think I going to be in a situation where I can't use flash as F1.4 can be handy if you don't have anti shake on your camera, and then think:- well I carried this extra nifty fifty lens on holiday or wherever, so I might as well use it for some shots Laughing Rolling Eyes
But think the Hexanon 40mm is more useful, even though it's slightly less sharp.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My copy of the 1.4/50 is pretty sharp wide open. It's a whole different level of quality to the 1.8/40 imho, which is one of the late production Konicas that doesn't reach the high standards that made the Hexanon line so well-regarded.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
My copy of the 1.4/50 is pretty sharp wide open. It's a whole different level of quality to the 1.8/40 imho, which is one of the late production Konicas that doesn't reach the high standards that made the Hexanon line so well-regarded.


Indeed the f1.4 is usable Wide open, but the 40mm although less sharp seems to produce nicer shots for me...of course it might be because I use the 40mm more therefore have more chance of nicer shots Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, the 1.8/40 doesn't deserve the Hexanon name, it's the least good of all the Konica normals, the plastic 1.8/50 is only a tiny bit bigger and significantly better. I don't find the 1.8/40 acceptably sharp or contrasty until f4. The older 1.7/50 is the one to have, it's a whole higher level of performance to the 1.8/40. The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is a far nicer lens than the Konica 1.8/40, and the Minolta 1.7/50 is perhaps even better than the wonderful Konica 1.7/50. They are all good enough, but the 1.8/40 is only just and so good enough imho.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
For me, the 1.8/40 doesn't deserve the Hexanon name, it's the least good of all the Konica normals, the plastic 1.8/50 is only a tiny bit bigger and significantly better. I don't find the 1.8/40 acceptably sharp or contrasty until f4. The older 1.7/50 is the one to have, it's a whole higher level of performance to the 1.8/40. The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is a far nicer lens than the Konica 1.8/40, and the Minolta 1.7/50 is perhaps even better than the wonderful Konica 1.7/50. They are all good enough, but the 1.8/40 is only just and so good enough imho.


Well when I can get pleasing shots from the 40mm I'm happy...this snap seems to have everything from the subject being sharp to a pleasant background (yeah I know I should have isolated the background more Wink ).



PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow, impressing picture. has a nice pop:)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

C41 colour film is much less demanding than a modern digital sensor, and if you're only taking family snaps the 1.8/40 is more than enough. The 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 are the best two Konica normals, the older 1.4/57 is wonderful too, the 1.8/40 and 1.8/50 were produced in the last days of Konica's 35mm production and they cut the quality to compete with cheaper competitors, the older Hexanons are of a higher level, things got progressively less good, the earlier 7 element 3.5/28 is better than the later 5 element version and if you put the two side-by-side, the 5 element looks and feels cheaper, same with the 1.7/50 and the 1.8/50. Konica aren't the only maker who did this.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
C41 colour film is much less demanding than a modern digital sensor, and if you're only taking family snaps the 1.8/40 is more than enough. The 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 are the best two Konica normals, the older 1.4/57 is wonderful too, the 1.8/40 and 1.8/50 were produced in the last days of Konica's 35mm production and they cut the quality to compete with cheaper competitors, the older Hexanons are of a higher level, things got progressively less good, the earlier 7 element 3.5/28 is better than the later 5 element version and if you put the two side-by-side, the 5 element looks and feels cheaper, same with the 1.7/50 and the 1.8/50. Konica aren't the only maker who did this.


Well in my own test the 40mm is not as sharp as the 50mm Hexanons but still the 40mm is good on the older digital cameras as shown in the link using an Olympus E-330.....also in my shot if it was drum scanned it would look even better i.e. more detail

http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
My copy of the 1.4/50 is pretty sharp wide open. It's a whole different level of quality to the 1.8/40 imho, which is one of the late production Konicas that doesn't reach the high standards that made the Hexanon line so well-regarded.


+10

IMHO you are right.

The last series of 28, 50, and some hexanons like the 1,8/40, though more constrast have less resolution power and IQ.

For some people the oldest F lenses are better yet.

For near 10 years the only thing that I did was use and try equipments. Beleave me, in Hexanon line of 50 mm look for the 1,7/50 with the little and all white letters in the front ring. You will not dissapointed, but enjoy.

The 1,4 is a good lens, of course, but the 1,7 plays in other league.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Juan, I have that 1.7/50 and it is really a top lens.

I have two F lenses - 2.8/35 and 2.8/100, they really are wonderful, the 35 has such 3D, I have the later all metal EE version and it's also very good, but noticeably less good than the old F version. In someways, the F 2.8/35 is even better than my Opton Biogon 2.8/35, I haven't tried a better 35mm lens.

I have owned some Canon FL lenses, still have the 2.5/35 and I found them to be better than the FD lenses I also owned.

Why the older stuff is so good I don't know, perhaps they used glass types that were banned due to environmental regulations? Perhaps the economy prior to the oil crisis in the early 70s also played a role, after the oil crisis, people had less money so cheaper products had to be made.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, for me Hexanon pancake does not deserve the hype that it gets (sharpest lens ever, yeah, right), but saying that it does not deserve the Hexanon name IMHO is a bit too far. It's a useful lens: small, fast, an unusual focal length, and it's not a coke bottle either. I certainly don't regret having it. Yeah, 50mm f1.7 is sharper, as is 50mm f1.4, but then it's a 50mm, where the choice of top performing glass is immense.

Excalibur, great shot btw.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree Juan, I have that 1.7/50 and it is really a top lens.

I have two F lenses - 2.8/35 and 2.8/100, they really are wonderful, the 35 has such 3D, I have the later all metal EE version and it's also very good, but noticeably less good than the old F version. In someways, the F 2.8/35 is even better than my Opton Biogon 2.8/35, I haven't tried a better 35mm lens.

I have owned some Canon FL lenses, still have the 2.5/35 and I found them to be better than the FD lenses I also owned.

Why the older stuff is so good I don't know, perhaps they used glass types that were banned due to environmental regulations? Perhaps the economy prior to the oil crisis in the early 70s also played a role, after the oil crisis, people had less money so cheaper products had to be made.

I'm glad you brought up the 35mm, use the lens vastly more than the 40mm even if it is slower. It performs much nicer at 2.8 than the 40mm and I went through 3 copies of the 40mm before finding a good copy but still don't use it....


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

40/1.8 Hex sharpens up to an acceptable level at f4 but even at wider apertures image center is sharp enough to isolate subject from the background

NEX5N+Hex 40/1.8 at about f2



Stopped to f5.6 it matches 50/1.7 in sharpness/contrast departments IMO.



And I prefer colour rendition of the older 50/1.7 EE 0.45 mfd




than the newer 50/1.7 AE 0,55 mfd



In my personal ranking the 50/1.4 is probably the best of the bunch overall



and Hex 50/3.5 Macro takes the 2nd place



PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:
Well, for me Hexanon pancake does not deserve the hype that it gets (sharpest lens ever, yeah, right), but saying that it does not deserve the Hexanon name IMHO is a bit too far. It's a useful lens: small, fast, an unusual focal length, and it's not a coke bottle either. I certainly don't regret having it. Yeah, 50mm f1.7 is sharper, as is 50mm f1.4, but then it's a 50mm, where the choice of top performing glass is immense.

Excalibur, great shot btw.


Thanks for the comment on the shot it was a rare moment when my grandaughter didn't mind her photo being taken, probably cos I'd just bought her an ice cream Laughing

And would like to add in case any newbie is reading this thread:- Well I too like razor sharp lenses and the only reason is for backup in case of crops, but lets face it, there is no point being disappointed if a Hexanon 40mm or AR 28mm f3.5 is just short of razor sharp if it works for any of us who don't own Contax lenses and are not pros or advanced amateurs.
Anyway with today's technology, labs can produce a very good 16X20 print (even from 35mm 200 ISO film) from any shot (correctly exposed with no camera shake) ......taken by very good lens, and would class the Hexanon range at least "very good".


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well shapencolour...impressive shots and I agree with you that the Hexanon 50mm f1.4 seems to be a better lens, as for my copies the 50mm f1.4 seems to be sharper compared to my Hexanon 50mm f1.7 and f1.8...but would add I'm not a nifty fifty man and don't have hundreds of shots to compare, as my thinking is:- you can only really judge a lens over time, yanno looking back on your shots and you see the ones that you like and what lens was used, and some lenses stand out more from others.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here one from today with the 50/1.7


the boy who loves flowers... by G.Don, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All my 1,8/40 were more warm than yours.

And my 1,7/50 a lot sharpers.

Copies difference, sure.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I said the 1.8/40 didn't deserve the Hexanon name, I just meant I felt they should have called it a Hexar to denote that it was a cheaper option not quite at the same level as the other Hexanons.

I prefer the earlier 1.7/50 to the later one too, the earlier one is an incredibly sharp lens, certainly sharper than my 1.4/50, which itself, is a very sharp lens indeed. I would never sell either of them, although I think I prefer the older 1.4/57 for work at larger apertures due to it's character (a little less highly corrected).

For me, if you can't afford a Contax Zeiss Planar 1.7/50, the best relatively cheap alternatives are the earlier Hexanon 1.7/50 and the Minolta Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 or later MD 1.7/50, for my money, the only advantage the Planar holds is that amazing T* coating.

I'm not trying to argue the 1.8/40 isn't a very capable lens, it is, but so is just about every other 50 I've tried, however, it doesn't belong in the same category of lenses that are something special imho like the 1.7/50, 1.4/50 and 1.4/57 Hexanons, Minolta 1.7/50, Topcon 1.8/58.

It is worth pointing out that C41 colour film is too low in resolution and too variable in colours, contrast etc to really show the subtle differences between good 50-ish lenses, if you're shooting C41, then any 50 will be more than good enough.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Layer-cake wrote:
I'm glad you brought up the 35mm, use the lens vastly more than the 40mm even if it is slower. It performs much nicer at 2.8 than the 40mm and I went through 3 copies of the 40mm before finding a good copy but still don't use it....


I agree, the 35mm is a nicer lens, more pleasing character at wide apertures I've had four of the 1.8/40 I think, still got one, they varied a bit. I think the 1.8/40 and 1.8/50 were made by Tokina, as were a few other of the late Konicas like the 28-135 and 35-70 zooms, so it is understandable if there is a bit more copy variation that there was with the Konica-made lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
Well shapencolour...impressive shots and I agree with you that the Hexanon 50mm f1.4 seems to be a better lens, as for my copies the 50mm f1.4 seems to be sharper compared to my Hexanon 50mm f1.7 and f1.8...but would add I'm not a nifty fifty man and don't have hundreds of shots to compare, as my thinking is:- you can only really judge a lens over time, yanno looking back on your shots and you see the ones that you like and what lens was used, and some lenses stand out more from others.


The difference between any sort of 50/1.7 and 50/1.4 Hex is not that significant i.e. I think that they're decent enough for anyone to be satified with both.I'm glad to have lenses of different brands,but always appreciate and enjoy anyone's experience that can bring about some refreshing ideas and feelings Smile.And yes - best judgements can be done after some time.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shapencolour wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Well shapencolour...impressive shots and I agree with you that the Hexanon 50mm f1.4 seems to be a better lens, as for my copies the 50mm f1.4 seems to be sharper compared to my Hexanon 50mm f1.7 and f1.8...but would add I'm not a nifty fifty man and don't have hundreds of shots to compare, as my thinking is:- you can only really judge a lens over time, yanno looking back on your shots and you see the ones that you like and what lens was used, and some lenses stand out more from others.


The difference between any sort of 50/1.7 and 50/1.4 Hex is not that significant i.e. I think that they're decent enough for anyone to be satified with both.I'm glad to have lenses of different brands,but always appreciate and enjoy anyone's experience that can bring about some refreshing ideas and feelings Smile.And yes - best judgements can be done after some time.



Forgot to mention I have a film mind....with a digital camera you can take 300 shots a week for testing different lenses which would take me years also there is variation of films, so it takes longer Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice picture posted!

I'm enjoying my 100/2.8 and 57/1.4. As a new Hexanon user, both lenses give me some surprises. Even though I do not have the 50/1.7, yet, I heard the same comment that 40/1.8 is not as good as other 50s.

Knowing the positive feedback of the 50/1.7 and its low price, I will probably buy one in the future to try.