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

Hexanon 1,7/50 or Mamiya 1,8/55 (6/5)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject: Hexanon 1,7/50 or Mamiya 1,8/55 (6/5) Reply with quote
I have now as my normal lens an Hexanon 1,7/50 version 2.

I can buy a Mamiya Sekor SX 1,8/55 (6/5 version)


Is the Mamiya better than the very good Hexanon?

Any experience with both?

Thank you.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both are very capable lenses.
I am unsure how one would be better than the other, but I think it might come down to what you shoot and how you shoot.
I have never owned the Mamiya SX lens but have used both the Hexanon and the older M42 Auto Mamiya-Sekor 1.8/55
I much preferred the Mamiya over the Hexanon for the way it handled for me, and I sold the Hexanon.
Incidentally, I could find no difference in sharpness between mine, but the Mamiya rendering is delightful.
Tom


PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have the MS 55 1.8 but IMHO the konica would be hard to beat. I recommend you get both. Then report back.... Laugh 1


PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, guys.

AFAIK, the history of the Mamiya lens 55/1,8 (6/5 version) had begun with the DTL lenses. The last of DTL was 6/5 w/o any external

difference with the 6/4 version till I saw.

This 6/5 version was continued in the ES for XTL mount.

And finally, it died with the M42 SX version.

In the QBM mount, the planar 50/1,8 was made, not the MAMIYA SX 55/1,8.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Mamiya is very good, but I would be curious to get the famous Hexanon too !


PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have the Hexanon, but the Mamiya Sekor SX 1,8/55 is just about my favourite lens in the 50mm range, it's very good.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both the Mamiya and several 1.7/50mm Hexanons.

The 1.7/50mm Hexanons certainly are good lenses (especially considering their low price), but not better than e. g. a Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm (which is the weakest of the Minolta 1.7/50mm lenses).

I may post a few images tomorrow.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, very much

All my Minolta's 50/58 mm lenses are very good, yes.

My prefer were

58/1,2 and MC 50/1,4

My 50/1,7 never like me so much. They are very good, obviusly.}

But I like anothers more.

I had a mamiya 2/50 (DOT version) and it was very good lens too, but I read that the 1,8/55 2° version is better.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I have both the Mamiya and several 1.7/50mm Hexanons.

The 1.7/50mm Hexanons certainly are good lenses (especially considering their low price), but not better than e. g. a Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm (which is the weakest of the Minolta 1.7/50mm lenses).

I may post a few images tomorrow.

Stephan


Hello Stephan

I had read your post again and my attention Stopped un your "which is the weakest of the Minolta 1,7/50mm lenses", refering to the MD-III version.

Well. Can you tell me which version is the best for you?

Thank you in avance.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On a slight side note, and given the good words for the lens, how does the Mamiy Sekkor SX 50/2.8 compare against the 55/1.8 version? I got one cheap with an old Petri CC 50 f/2 and they've been lying near the bottom of the 'to test' pile since arriving..


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Hexanon for me is my go to 50, it punches well above it’s price. I need edge to edge sharpness and this just delivers pure and simple.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
On a slight side note, and given the good words for the lens, how does the Mamiy Sekkor SX 50/2.8 compare against the 55/1.8 version? I got one cheap with an old Petri CC 50 f/2 and they've been lying near the bottom of the 'to test' pile since arriving..


First:

Version of plane 1,8/55 mamita sekor:

1- TL versión with chrome nose and 6/4 scheme
Tokina made?
2- TL versión with chrome nose and 6/4 scheme with different aperture ring. With A/M Swicht
3-DTL versión, all black with 6/4 scheme, better coating. Made by Cosina.
4-DTL versión all black with 6/5 scheme. Made by Mamiya? Without A/M swicht

SX

5- WITHOUT FL in the aperture ring. 6/5 scheme. Mamiya made.

6- With FL in the aperture ring. 6/5 scheme. Better coated. Made by Mamiya

Any of them (the version 1 and 2 are cold rendering) are very good lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
The Hexanon for me is my go to 50, it punches well above it’s price. I need edge to edge sharpness and this just delivers pure and simple.


Thank you. Very much


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The konica is ridiculously cheap for its capabilites. In many ways as good or better than highly the takumar 50 1.4 imho. The sold listings are currently in the 15 to 25 dollar range.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Apples and Oranges in the measurement methods, age of the tests, publications. Nevertheless. I estimate that on sensors the M-S SX 55mm 1.8 is about equal to the Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7. The center will be outresolved in both cases, the edges more improved to the film test result with the M-S lens because of its focal length. I do not know the Hexanon but have the M-S SX 55mm 1.8 (it is more 57mm BTW) it is excellent on the A7RII for both landscapes and portraits. Bokeh a bit busy though. I bought a Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 recently and converted it to EF mount but have done no image making with it yet. I think it is the MD version that was not the best in IQ.




On the lens quality shifts in time for the Minolta SR lenses I do have some (not that informative) screenshots. To be honest I do not know anymore who collected the data for that but thanks anyway.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
Apples and Oranges in the measurement methods, age of the tests, publications. Nevertheless. I estimate that on sensors the M-S SX 55mm 1.8 is about equal to the Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7. The center will be outresolved in both cases, the edges more improved to the film test result with the M-S lens because of its focal length. I do not know the Hexanon but have the M-S SX 55mm 1.8 (it is more 57mm BTW) it is excellent on the A7RII for both landscapes and portraits. Bokeh a bit busy though. I bought a Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 recently and converted it to EF mount but have done no image making with it yet. I think it is the MD version that was not the best in IQ.




On the lens quality shifts in time for the Minolta SR lenses I do have some (not that informative) screenshots. To be honest I do not know anymore who collected the data for that but thanks anyway.


Thank for those datas. Very informative ones.

In my experience, the version 2 of the hexanon 1,7 at least with my copies, is sharper and a little less warmer than the version 1.

Both are surpassed by my sx 55/1,8 (2 nd version). This lens from f/2,8 to f/11 has a very high center rendering and decente in the borders
Nice colors and contrast.

About Minolta I read sonewhere than the MD with 55 mm filter has better coating (less flare and better CA) than the MC PF (my copy was not too sharp). And sharper than the MD with 49 mm filter.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
On a slight side note, and given the good words for the lens, how does the Mamiy Sekkor SX 50/2.8 compare against the 55/1.8 version? I got one cheap with an old Petri CC 50 f/2 and they've been lying near the bottom of the 'to test' pile since arriving..


I guess you mean the DTL/TL version. No experience with it but that one is a 4/3 Tessar type and will have more fall off to the edges on both resolution and light.

Like with more brands image quality over the entire range of lenses can vary quite significantly, flaws in design and/or production, In the M-S CS range the 35mm 2.8 is an exceptionally good lens, in my experience and shown in some old test results. On the other hand the M-S CS 135mm 2.8 that I also have is a dog by its color aberrations. The M-S SX 55mm 1.8 is probably the gem of the SX range though the 1.4 seems to be good too. The last is a more common design of that period, original design goes back to the Contarex Planar. The later M-S CS and E standard 50mm lenses are not on the level of the 6/5 SX 55mm 1.8 either. IMHO.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
Gott23 wrote:
On a slight side note, and given the good words for the lens, how does the Mamiy Sekkor SX 50/2.8 compare against the 55/1.8 version? I got one cheap with an old Petri CC 50 f/2 and they've been lying near the bottom of the 'to test' pile since arriving..


I guess you mean the DTL/TL version. No experience with it but that one is a 4/3 Tessar type and will have more fall off to the edges on both resolution and light.


I never have seeing nor read about the SX 50/2,8.
As was say before, t must be a tessar type lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Starting from the initial question of this thread, today I have been looking at 14 f1.7 or f1.8 "normal" lenses plus, as a reference, the Asahi Super Takumar 1.4/50mm.

Asahi Super-Takumar 1.4/50mm
Canon nFD 1.8/50mm
Fuji Photo Fujinon 1.8/55mm
Konica Hexanon AR 1.7/50mm (later version)
Mamiya Sekor TL 1.8/55mm [4/6]
Mamiya Sekor SX 1.8/55mm [5/6]
Mamyia Sekor E 1.7/50mm
Minolta MD-I 1.7/55mm (55mm filter)
Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm
Nikon E 1.8/50mm (same computation als the later Nikkor 1.8/50mm and the current AF Nikkor)
Olympus Zuiko OM 1.8/50mm
Topcon Topcor RE 1.8/58mm
Zeiss Planar CY 1.7/50mm AE
Zeiss Planar CY 1.7/50mm MM

Here a few 100% crops from the 24 MP full frame corners (Sony A7II), always wide open:

Zeiss Planar CY 1.7/50mm MM - the best of the bunch (a seven lens computation like most 1.4/50mm lenses):



Minolta MD-I 1.7/50mm - nearly as sharp as the Zeiss:



Konica Hexanon 1.7/50mm (second smaller version): not as many details as the Zeiss and the Minolta, but still quite OK. Performance of the Canon nFD 1.8/50mm and the Nikon E 1.8/50mm is nearly identical to the Konica.



The Fujinon 1.8/55mm is one of the nicest vintage 55mm lenses:



Here's the Sekor SX 1.8/5mm (the Sekor 1.8/55mm for TL looks nearly identical):



Here, as a reference, the Super-Takumar 1.4/50mm (one of earliest and at the same time worst 1.4/50mm lenses):



The Mamiya Sekor E 1.7/50mm is a much better performer than the earlier Mamiya TL and SX 1.8/55mm:



And finally the Zenit Helios 44M-7 2/58mm - lowest resolution and lowest contrast:


Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Here a few 100% crops from the 24 MP full frame corners (Sony A7II), always wide open:




Here's the Sekor SX 1.8/5mm (the Sekor 1.8/55mm for TL looks nearly identical):





Stephan


Correct, wide open the M-S SX 55mm 1.8 is not one of the best. It has some issues:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61874842
Yet at 5.6 and tighter apertures it performs excellent:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62663426
click on the blue "original size" text under the image. That still does not show all of the raw quality.
Your test and my images are not in contradiction with the old and simple test result I showed.
However a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 and the Takumar SMC 50mm 1.4 of the same period and in the same test were worse at 2.0 and beyond:

The Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 and the Konica Hexanon AR 50mm 1.7 both have an excellent start at their widest aperture, quite unusual for standard lenses. They show more similarities. For wide open I would however fetch my Canon FD SSC 55mm 1.2 or Olympus OM 50mm 1.4, despite their flare issues. Even better, counting everything, would be the Minolta 58mm 1.2 that I do not have.

I still have some doubts about the Mamiya 50mm standard lenses of the CS and E period compared to other brand's standard lenses of that period. various tests of that period give me that impression. I would go for other brands of that period that performed better.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:


Version of plane 1,8/55 mamita sekor:

1- TL versión with chrome nose and 6/4 scheme
Tokina made?
2- TL versión with chrome nose and 6/4 scheme with different aperture ring. With A/M Swicht
3-DTL versión, all black with 6/4 scheme, better coating. Made by Cosina.
4-DTL versión all black with 6/5 scheme. Made by Mamiya? Without A/M swicht

SX

5- WITHOUT FL in the aperture ring. 6/5 scheme. Mamiya made.

6- With FL in the aperture ring. 6/5 scheme. Better coated. Made by Mamiya

Any of them (the version 1 and 2 are cold rendering) are very good lenses.



The beauty ring on my sample reads AUTO mamiya / sekor sx 1:1.8 f=55mm
BTW, I have seen better typography on beauty rings, on Topcors and Vivitars for example.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Ernst Dinkla"]
stevemark wrote:


I still have some doubts about the Mamiya 50mm standard lenses of the CS and E period compared to other brand's standard lenses of that period. various tests of that period give me that impression. I would go for other brands of that period that performed better.


At least the Sekor E system was sold at extremely low prices here in Switzerland (i remember my father buying the Mamiya ZE body with Ssekor 3.5/28mm, 1.7/50mm and 3.5/135mm lenses for a mere CHF 330.-- around 1981. Then CHF was about equal to the German Mark (DM); therefore somthing like EUR 170.-- (ignoring inflation, of course). No surprise some Sekor E lenses are a slightly inferior to the contemporary Can/Min/Nik lenses ... I used to work with these lenses throughout my highschool time, mainly shooting girls & landscapes. When i was 16, i added the Sekor 4/200mm, the 1.4/50mm, the 3.5/50mm Macro, the 2.8/28mm, 2.8/135 and the Mamiya ZM body. Finally - just before acquiring my Minolta 9000 at the age of 18, i got also the Sekor 3.8/80-200mm. It was a lot of fun, and i never felt hampered by these lenses. I certainly couldn't see any difference when i changed to the Minolta AF 1.4/50mm and the AF 4/70-210mm. One year later, however, i got the Minolta AF 1.4/85mm an the AF 2.8/200 APO, and boy that was an eye-opener ... especially at concerts!!

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1