Hexanon AR 50mm - f1.7 vs. f1.8

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

As between the two subject MF lenses (only):

They appear superficially to be similar. Has anyone used both? Is one to be preferred over the other?

Searched this forum and also on line - could not come up with a lot of opinion on how they compare with one another and measure up against one another. Confused

Plan is to purchase one or the other, but not both, for use on my Olympus E-PL1.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well I have both and can't see the difference in use so haven't bothered to do any tests to compare, if there was a slight difference it would probably be lost in copy variation anyway.

Rolf · Expire: 2015-12-26

did you visit www.buhla.de ? lot of information there

Wink

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

I have 2 1.7s and 1 1.8 and prefer the 1.8 sharp from the go

Jeff Zen · Joined: 17 Jun 2009 Posts: 262 Location: Northwest USA

I tend to agree with Eddieitman.

I have both too, and have tested multiple copies. Both are comparable in flat even lighting. My 1.7 flares more in contrasty and brighter lighting conditions though. Also wide open it tends to look like a softar filter which isn't always a bad thing. It makes lovely portraits.
I think the 1.8 performs much better in varied lighting conditions and also outperforms the 40mm f1.8 pancake especially wide open, but the 1.7 has something special in it's color and rendering and is especially nice at about f5.6. (I should point out that I have a later version and have not tried the early one.)

There can be pronounced differences in copy variations so you will get differing opinions. I usually use a deep hood with these lenses esp. the 1.7. I can leave it off the 1.8 sometimes, but not the 1.7. I think Buhla.e oversells the 1.7, beware!

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

Wow. Thanks, guys. I'm getting my eyes opened here!! Good to know now, before I buy!!

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Hi everyone,

The Hexanon 50/1.7 and 50/1.8 are very different lenses.

The first exists in two versions, the first of which was introduced in early 1972. It was made until the end of 1976. It was replaced by a more compact version, which was manufactured from about the middle of 1975 and discontinued in late 1981. The Hexanon 50/1.8 first appeared in early 1981 and was made until 1987, when Konica withdrew from the SLR market. From early 1985, the barrel of the Hexanon 50/1.8 was entirely made of plastic.

Both versions of the Hexanon 50/1.7 were made by Konica and both have an aperture scale going down to f16. Some lenses of the early version have an aperture scale with half steps. The first version focuses to 45cm and the second to 55. The second is generally considered to have better coatings than the first. On the other hand, the front optical element is more recessed on the first version and thus less exposed to flare. There are no optical differences between the two versions. The principal difference between the two is the bulk of the lens barrel.

Konica subcontracted the manufacturing of the Hexanon 50/1.8 to Tokina. It is a compact lens, similar in ways to the compact version of the Hexanon 50/1.7. Its aperture scale goes down to f22. As a lens from the early 1980s, it has better coatings than the earlier 50mm Hexanons. This is a very good lens, but in my experience, it doesn't stand out in any particular way.

I was very surprised to see some members claiming the 1.8 model to be sharper than the 1.7 model. My first thought is that there is probably something wrong with the 1.7s that they have, as this lens is widely renowned (and celebrated) for its sharpness. Of course, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. Eddieitman may have an outstanding example of the 50/1.8 (or two 50/17s that were dropped and become de-centered).

In the middle 1970s, this lens (and the Hexanon 40/1.8 pancake, also made by Tokina) was touted in test after test as one of the sharpest lenses available for 35mm photography at the time. The web is also full of examples.

All this to say that A. Buhl is not overselling the 50/1.7. His claims about this lens are perfectly in line with the views of the bulk of the Konica users community and with my experience as a Konica user since the late 1970s.

Cheers

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1749

Thank you, konicamera. Yours a very interesting and informative post . . . helpful to me.

It was not at all my intent and I did not foresee or anticipate it.

But it seems I might have stirred up a minor controversy here. Wink

There is not a dull moment in this life. Smile

Rolf · Expire: 2015-12-26

[quote="guardian"].......

But it seems I might have stirred up a minor controversy here. Wink

........

No. It is always the same with question like yours. Ask 5 people and you will 6 different answers. At least you must decide by the information you will get from the forum members or other information outside (like Buhla)

Wink

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

When considering opinions, it's important that they come from people who have both lenses, which is not always the case.

BTW, where is Ian? How can there be a Konica post without Ian participating?

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Actually, as far as I know, Tokina is the only lens manufacturer who had an on-going collaboration relationship with Konica. For a period of about 10 years, Konica sub-contracted to Tokina the manufacturing of about a dozen lenses, half of which were zooms. All of those lenses were designed by Konica, however. That a large number of lenses were made for Konica by Tokina is common knowledge among Hexanon enthusiasts and has been for as long as I can remember. I have this information from a several long-time collectors of Konica equipment and from the exclusive importer, now deceased, of Konica equiment to the US.

The only source that I know of that is accessible online is the website of Greg Weber of Freemont, Nebraska. Greg is a camera technician who had a close relationship with Konica until the company withdrew from the SLR market and when it did so, he purchased all of its left over stock in the US. He can repair anything with the name Konica on it, SLR or otherwise. His site has a partial list of Tokina-made Hexanon lenses, including the 40/1.8 pancake ( http://www.webercamera.com/lenses.html ).

All Hexanons manufactured by Tokina (with 3 exceptions) can be easily recognized by the narrow aperture ring with the long, thin rectangular aperture lock button. The three exceptions are zooms, which Tokina also released under its own name in other mounts (the 28-135/f4-4.6, 80-200/4 and 80-200/f4.5). As Konica�s film-to-flange distance is very short (40.5mm), the aperture ring on those zooms in K/AR mount is quite thick. Come to think of it, there was also a fourth �exception�, but Konica had withdrawn from SLR business by the time it hit the market: That was the Tokina AT-X 28-85/f3.4-4.5 zoom.

To summarize, to the best of my knowledge, the Tokina-made Hexanons are the 21/f2.8 (1979), 24/f2.8 (1982), 35/f2.8 (1981), 40/f1.8 (1978), 50/f1.8 (metal and plastic barrel models, in 1978 and 1985, respectively) prime lenses, and the 28-135/f4-4.6 (1983), 35-70/f3.5 (1978), 35-70/f4 (1981), 35-70/f3.5-4.5 (1985), 70-150/f4 (1982), 80-200/f4 (1983), and 80-200/f4.5 (1985) zooms.

I've also heard rumors about Tamron making lenses for Konica, but only in the context of the three Hexar entry-level lenses (28/f3.5, 135/f3.5 and 200/f4), which Konica introduced in early 1975 and offered until late 1979. But this is only a rumor, as far as I know. The three Hexars are very different from the rest of Konica's lens lineup and the identity of their manufacturer remains a mystery to me. I tend to doubt the Tamron theory, however, largely because the Hexars were marketed as entry level lenses. Tamron was already at the time an outstanding lens maker, so the proposition that Konica would have turned to them to make three entry-level lenses strikes me as not entirely logical. But I may be wrong, of course.

Hope this info proves useful,

Cheers

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

hard to beleive 21mm 24mm made by Tokina, but perhaps made like Cosina make today Zeiss and Leica glasses.

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Jeff Zen · Joined: 17 Jun 2009 Posts: 262 Location: Northwest USA

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Could it be the Tokina built lenses are the inconsistent ones? I have two earlier ones; 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 waiting for my NEX purchase in order to use.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Oh dear Jeff Zen...I've two 40mms and two 28mms and they are very good but although I'm a Hexanon fan I think my Canon 28mm FDn is a bit sharper.....also I've never tried the 28mm wide open so don't have a view about that.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Jeff Zen · Joined: 17 Jun 2009 Posts: 262 Location: Northwest USA

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

It�s not uncommon to read that someone found that a Hexanon didn�t live up to his expectations. But to read that someone�s 40/1.8 is �a piece of junk�, or 28/3.5 is �unusable wide open� is an eye opener. Lenses vary from sample to sample of course � some are great, others less so. But even so, I am surprised as Konica�s quality control standards in the middle 1970s were such that they were used as the benchmark against which the Japanese government tested all photo equipment exported from Japan (the little passed sticker). It has also been my experience that the Hexanon lineup has greater uniformity in optical quality than most other lens brands I tried.

Just out of curiosity, what do you use them on? I ask because the pancake, for one, is known to be unpleasantly soft wide open on 4/3 sensors and its performance on APC size sensors varies. Then again, this lens was meant to be used on a full frame SLR and seems to perform brilliantly in that role according to most accounts. Which version of the 28/3.5 do you use? You mention that the 50/1.4 is astonishing and the 50/1.8 incredible. What do you like about them � sharpness, color rendition, flare control?

Anyway, I'm sorry about your samples and I hope your next Hexanon acquisitions will be more rewarding.

Cheers

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

It is just my personal opinion, but owning the 1.7/50, 1.8/50, 1.8/40 and 1.4/50, I would say the best overall is the 1.4/50, mine is the later AE f22 version. The second best is the first version 1.7/50 with deeply recessed front element, EE and f16. The 1.8/50 is a different lens in character and rendering to the 1.7/50 and I can see how some would prefer it, is is very sharp wide open, perhaps the sharpest 50mm lens wide open of all those I have tried. The 1.8/40 is a great lens too but on my NEX-3 it isn't as good as the other three.

I've shot them all on film too and the 1.4/50 is absolutely wonderful on film, better than it is on the NEX-3. I would still place them in the same order of preference. The 1.7/50 I found to be better than even my Rollei HFT Planar 1.8/50 and CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 and in a different class to my Canon FD 1.8/50, Yashica ML 2/50 and Fujinon 1.6/50. I compared it directly to the excellent Minolta Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 and Pentax-M 1.7/50 (both of which I liked a lot) and the Hexanon still won imho.

On the CA with the 3.5/135, I have four Konica 135s, an early AR 3.5 with chrome band, EE and f16, it is a very good lens but not as good as some 135s I have. I also have a late AE f22 3.5 and that is slightly sharper than the early one, a little more contrasty too as it is MC and the early one is single coated. I have the 3.5 Hexar too and that's really good, but I haven't compared it directly. The best one I have is a 3.2, f16 EE version, it's one of the best 135s I have tried. I have directly compared both my 3.5s and the 3.2 and the 3,2 was sharper, contrastier and had more microcontrast. I would call the 3.2 the best 135mm lens I have ever tried, but I also have a Topcor RE Auto 3.5/135 and in direct comparison to the Hexanon 3.2/135 the Topcor was slightly sharper (and it was only visible when carefully pixel-peeping), the Topcor also has slightly more saturated colours and slightly more microcontrast.

However, I have never seen any CA on any of my four Konica 135s, or on my 3.5/200 or 4.5/300 either, I would call them exceptional in their CA control.

On the 3.5/28, I have three, an early all-metal f16 EE, a late smaller, rubber grip AE f22 and the Hexar version. The late AE f22 is very good, one of the best 28mms I've tried. The Hexar is probably as good. The early one though has 7 elements and imho it's an amazing lens, sharp as a tack at all apertures and a good deal of 3D pop, it's only weakness is the single coating, but it's perhaps the best single coating I've tried. I would never part with this lens, it has a special place in my heart as I made many of my best landscape panoramas with it. For me, it outclasses all the other 28s I've tried, things like the Yashica ML 2.8/28, Canon FD 2.8/28 and Pentacon PB 2.8/28 are, imho visibly inferior to this Hexanon.

I have lots of sample images from these lenses if the OP wants to see them. I own somewhere between 25 and 30 Hexanons and all of them are excellent imho, and I have tortured and pixel peeped them all on my NEX-3, most of them I have shot on film too. Like the Japanese Government, they are my benchmark, and have made me much more picky about IQ, I have sold many good lenses because they didn't compare well to the Hexanons. I haven't found a bad copy or even a lesser copy, so I agree with Attila and konicamera about their level of QC.

aspen · Expire: 2014-02-20