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

konica 50 1.4 vs 1.7 vs 1.8 ...to clarify !
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:31 pm    Post subject: konica 50 1.4 vs 1.7 vs 1.8 ...to clarify ! Reply with quote

Hi,

I have some doubts about konica AR 50 prime lens.
About this, there are three types : f 1.8 - f 1.7 - f 1.4
I'd like to known what are differences between their: Please, from a direct experience/ comparison.
I'm needing best lens for portrait.
I have 40mm 1.8

Regards

Pasquale


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi pasqual

ive had almost all the AR lenses and my favorite remains the 57/1.4. i think this is a fabulous lens for portraits, it has a great deal of separation or 3d effect, great smooth bokeh, tremendous clarity and beautiful color. i have moved fully from slr to rangefinder systems, and of all the slr lenses i had, incliding the zeiss contax planars 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, i only kept this lens, the 57/1.4. plus it is very inexpensive.
tony


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 1.8/50 is a cheaper quality lens, from the end of Konica's production, it's smaller, lighter and made of plastic, like the 1.8/40 and some others from this late period of production, it was actually made by Tokina. It's a good lens, perhaps it's outstanding feature is it's sharpness wide open.

The 1.7/50 is earlier and a better lens all-round; larger, heavier and much more solidly built, made by Konica themselves and is one of the very best 50mm lenses available, I'd always chose this one over the 1.8/50.

The 1.4/50 is similar to the 1.7, just faster, it's a great lens but I prefer the 1.7 which is a little bit sharper and contrastier.

The 1.4/57 is an earlier lens, it's very good but not as sharp or contrasty as the later 1.4/50 and 1.7/50. What it does have going for it is a nice vintage character. It's a bit soft wide open but at f4 it really shines. Being an earlier model, it's only available in a single-coated version whereas the 1.7/50, 1.8/50 and 1.4/50 are all multicoated. Build quality is probably better than the later Konicas, it's certainly heavier and feels more solid, being all metal.

All four are better than the 1.8/40, so a nice upgrade for you I think. I have lots of image samples from them all if you want to see some. Personally, I'd go for the first version of the 1.7/50 with the large recessed front element, it's a stunning lens, especially in sharpness.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 1.8/50 is a cheaper quality lens, from the end of Konica's production, it's smaller, lighter and made of plastic, like the 1.8/40 and some others from this late period of production, it was actually made by Tokina. It's a good lens, perhaps it's outstanding feature is it's sharpness wide open.

The 1.7/50 is earlier and a better lens all-round; larger, heavier and much more solidly built, made by Konica themselves and is one of the very best 50mm lenses available, I'd always chose this one over the 1.8/50.

The 1.4/50 is similar to the 1.7, just faster, it's a great lens but I prefer the 1.7 which is a little bit sharper and contrastier.

The 1.4/57 is an earlier lens, it's very good but not as sharp or contrasty as the later 1.4/50 and 1.7/50. What it does have going for it is a nice vintage character. It's a bit soft wide open but at f4 it really shines. Being an earlier model, it's only available in a single-coated version whereas the 1.7/50, 1.8/50 and 1.4/50 are all multicoated. Build quality is probably better than the later Konicas, it's certainly heavier and feels more solid, being all metal.

All four are better than the 1.8/40, so a nice upgrade for you I think. I have lots of image samples from them all if you want to see some. Personally, I'd go for the first version of the 1.7/50 with the large recessed front element, it's a stunning lens, especially in sharpness.


thx for support Smile

So, you suggest 50mm f1.7 1st version ? EE version correct ?
Not big difference between this and 50mm f1.4 ?

Regards

Pasquale


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the first version of the 1.7/50, marked EE.

The 1.4/50 is not much different, just faster, I think the 1.7 is slightly sharper and contrastier but both are superb lenses, I use them both often on film and digital.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyway, you should read this here too

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonUebersicht.html

before your final decision.

Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pasquale:

The 50/1.8 was made by Tokina roughly from 1981 to 1987 and exists in two versions all-metal (until 1985) and all-plastic (from 1985). It is a quite sharp lens but, as Ian said, not quite as sharp as the 50/1.7. Its main advantages besides its sharpness are its small dimensions and light weight, especially the plastic version.

The 50/1.7 was made by Konica from 1973 to 1981 and also comes in two versions. The first was made until the end of 1976 and is extremely sharp one of the sharpest lenses available at the time. The second version, made from 1976 to 1981, is visibly different from the first in that it has a more compact barrel and slightly different styling. The optical formula is the same in both versions, however. The first version is a more solid lens and, IMO, generally a hair sharper than the latter version, although a given compact version could be sharper than a given earlier one. The later version also has somewhat better coatings.

The 50/1.4 was also made by Konica in two versions. The first version was made from 1973 to 1978 and the second from 1978 to 1984 or so. The differences between them are the same as in the case of the 50/1.7. The 50/1.4 is not as sharp as the 50/1.7, but it is generally still a very sharp lens. Its claim to fame, however, is brilliant color rendition. The aperture ring of the majority of the early 1.4s and 1.7s has half stops. Also, in contrast to the compact 1.7, the aperture of the compact 1.4 closes down to f22.

The 57/1.4 was made by Konica in three versions. The first version has a high-gloss black finish and an aluminum ring on which the focusing scale is engraved. The second version, made from 1967 to 1970, is just the same except that it has a satin black finish. The third version is entirely black, with a metal focusing ring and was made from 1970 to 1973. The two first versions will have amber/straw colored coatings while the third usually has the bluish Color Dynamic Coating that Konica introduced around 1970. The two types of coatings are very different in appearance and Ive seen the claim made that the earlier, straw colored coatings are better suited for B&W photography. I never investigated the matter, however.

A few words about EE vs AE versions. This is easily one of the most common myths about Hexanon lenses IMO. There is really no difference between EE and AE the first stands for Electronic Exposure (Electric Eye according to some), while the second stands for Automatic Exposure. Two names for the same principle and the exact same mechanism. There are many Hexanon lenses for which the change from EE to AE coincided with a change of version, but there is an equally large number of Hexanon lenses for which this is the only difference: The first that come to mind are the 55/3.5 macro, the 135/3.2, and the 200/3.5.

There are also many lenses, like the ubiquitous 28/3.5, the 35/2.8, the 50/1.7, and the 50/1.4, many of whose versions are all marked AE. The very first Hexanon AR lenses had a simple dot (.) instead of the EE. For a short while they had the dot and EE side by side, with the dot being the index mark. Are they the ▪ or ▪EE version? In light of this, I feel that speaking of EE or AE versions is a misunderstanding. A good illustration of this is the above-mentioned 57/1.4, whose three versions are all EE lenses, despite their clearly visible outer differences.

Pasquale: As a general rule, I would avoid very sharp lenses for portrait work. If you must use a 50mm for some reason, I would go with the 50/1.4. Otherwise, I would also greatly recommend the 57/1.4, which is indeed a lens with a unique personality. It would also get you within the range usually considered ideal for portrait work (80-135mm). The 57/1.4 will get you the equivalent of ~85mm on an APS-C sensor and ~115mm on a 4/3 sensor.



jj


Last edited by konicamera on Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Pasquale:

The 50/1.8 was made by Tokina roughly from 1981 to 1987 and exists in two versions all-metal (until 1985) and all-plastic (from 1985). It is a quite sharp lens but, as Ian said, not quite as sharp as the 50/1.7. Its main advantages are its small dimensions and sharpness. ``

The 50/1.7 was made by Konica from 1973 to 1981 and also comes in two versions. The first was made until 1976 and is extremely sharp one of the sharpest lenses available at the time. The second version, made from 1976 to 1981, is visibly different from the first in that it has a more compact barrel and slightly different styling. The optical formula is the same in both versions, however. The first version is a more solid lens and, IMO, generally a hair sharper than the latter version, although a given compact version could be shaper than a given earlier one.

The 50/1.4 was also made by Konica in two versions. The first version was made from 1973 to 1978 and the second from 1978 to 1984 or so. The differences between them are of the same order as in the case of the 50/1.7. The 50/1.4 is not as sharp as the 50/1.7, but it is generally still a very sharp lens. Its claim to fame, however, is brilliant color rendition. The aperture ring of the majority of the early 1.4s and 1.7s has half stops.

The 57/1.4 was made by Konica in three versions. The first version has a high-gloss black finish and an aluminum ring on which the focusing scale is engraved. The second version, made from 1967 to 1970, is just the same except that it has a satin black finish. The third version is entirely black, with a metal focusing ring and was made from 1970 to 1973. The two first versions will have amber/straw colored coatings while the third usually has the bluish Color Dynamic Coating that Konica introduced around 1970. The two types of coatings are very different in appearance and Ive seen the claim made that the earlier, straw colored coatings are better suited for B&W photography. I never investigated the matter, however.

A few words about EE vs AE versions. This is easily one of the most common myths about Hexanon lenses IMO. There is really no difference between EE and AE the first stands for Electronic Exposure (Electric Eye according to some), while the second stands for Automatic Exposure. Two names for the same principle and the exact same mechanism. There are many Hexanon lenses for which the change from EE to AE coincided with a change of version, but there is an equally large number of Hexanon lenses for which this is the only difference: The first that come to mind are the 55/3.5 macro, the 135/3.2, and the 200/3.5.

There are also many lenses, like the ubiquitous 28/3.5, the 35/2.8, the 50/1.7, and the 50/1.4, whose different versions are all marked AE. The very first Hexanon AR lenses had a simple dot (.) instead of the EE. For a short while they had the dot and EE side by side, with the dot being the index mark. Are they the ▪ or ▪EE version? In light of this, I feel that speaking of EE or AE versions is a misunderstanding. A good illustration of this is the above-mentioned 57/1.4, whose three versions are all EE lenses, despite their clearly visible outer differences.

Pasquale: As a general rule, I would avoid very sharp lenses for portrait work. If you must use a 50mm for some reason, I would go with the 50/1.4. Otherwise, I would also greatly recommend the 57/1.4, which is indeed a lens with a unique personality. It would also get you within the rage usually considered ideal for portrait work (80-135mm).The 57/1.4 will get you the equivalent of ~85mm on an APS-C sensor and ~115mm on a 4/3 sensor.



jj


Thanks for details Very Happy

Only a question, about 50 1.7 there are three version or two ?

- Konica Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 - earliest version with EE marking
- Konica Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 - early version with AE mark
- Konica Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 - later version with AE mark


I read about three version from buhla.de

So, 50 mm 1.7 EE mark and AE mark (early) are the same ?

Regards

Pasquale


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, they just changed the lettering. I don't know whether mine is labelled AE or EE, but it's the first version and one of my favourite lenses, a truly superb optic, hard to find anything sharper imho.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Pasquale:

The 50/1.8 was made by Tokina roughly from 1981 to 1987 and exists in two versions all-metal (until 1985) and all-plastic (from 1985). It is a quite sharp lens but, as Ian said, not quite as sharp as the 50/1.7. Its main advantages are its small dimensions and sharpness. ``

The 50/1.7 was made by Konica from 1973 to 1981 and also comes in two versions. The first was made until 1976 and is extremely sharp one of the sharpest lenses available at the time. The second version, made from 1976 to 1981, is visibly different from the first in that it has a more compact barrel and slightly different styling. The optical formula is the same in both versions, however. The first version is a more solid lens and, IMO, generally a hair sharper than the latter version, although a given compact version could be shaper than a given earlier one.

The 50/1.4 was also made by Konica in two versions. The first version was made from 1973 to 1978 and the second from 1978 to 1984 or so. The differences between them are of the same order as in the case of the 50/1.7. The 50/1.4 is not as sharp as the 50/1.7, but it is generally still a very sharp lens. Its claim to fame, however, is brilliant color rendition. The aperture ring of the majority of the early 1.4s and 1.7s has half stops.

The 57/1.4 was made by Konica in three versions. The first version has a high-gloss black finish and an aluminum ring on which the focusing scale is engraved. The second version, made from 1967 to 1970, is just the same except that it has a satin black finish. The third version is entirely black, with a metal focusing ring and was made from 1970 to 1973. The two first versions will have amber/straw colored coatings while the third usually has the bluish Color Dynamic Coating that Konica introduced around 1970. The two types of coatings are very different in appearance and Ive seen the claim made that the earlier, straw colored coatings are better suited for B&W photography. I never investigated the matter, however.

A few words about EE vs AE versions. This is easily one of the most common myths about Hexanon lenses IMO. There is really no difference between EE and AE the first stands for Electronic Exposure (Electric Eye according to some), while the second stands for Automatic Exposure. Two names for the same principle and the exact same mechanism. There are many Hexanon lenses for which the change from EE to AE coincided with a change of version, but there is an equally large number of Hexanon lenses for which this is the only difference: The first that come to mind are the 55/3.5 macro, the 135/3.2, and the 200/3.5.

There are also many lenses, like the ubiquitous 28/3.5, the 35/2.8, the 50/1.7, and the 50/1.4, whose different versions are all marked AE. The very first Hexanon AR lenses had a simple dot (.) instead of the EE. For a short while they had the dot and EE side by side, with the dot being the index mark. Are they the ▪ or ▪EE version? In light of this, I feel that speaking of EE or AE versions is a misunderstanding. A good illustration of this is the above-mentioned 57/1.4, whose three versions are all EE lenses, despite their clearly visible outer differences.

Pasquale: As a general rule, I would avoid very sharp lenses for portrait work. If you must use a 50mm for some reason, I would go with the 50/1.4. Otherwise, I would also greatly recommend the 57/1.4, which is indeed a lens with a unique personality. It would also get you within the rage usually considered ideal for portrait work (80-135mm).The 57/1.4 will get you the equivalent of ~85mm on an APS-C sensor and ~115mm on a 4/3 sensor.



jj


Thanks for this great info. My own direct experience of these lenses fits exactly with what you say. I don't know about the difference between the straw and blue coloured coatings for BW work, I have Hexanons with both types of coatings and I have shot BW film with them, but never looked or noticed a difference.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So,

- Konica Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 - earliest version with EE marking

and

- Konica Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 - early version with AE mark

were mounted in boundle with T3 camera and both have the click stops of half aperture values ?

....like to tell to change only the mark AE or EE ... It's same lens.

Sorry, but I'm little noob in Konica world Embarassed


PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt you will see big difference I have all and I don't remember for visible significant difference .


PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, here's my 2c. I'd go for 50mm f1.4. Imho speed alone makes it worthwhile for a very modest price increase over 50mm f1.7. I also like the rendering of f1.4 version better. I think that what konicacamera wrote about superior color rendition is very true. Here's the thread with my Hexanon 50mm f1.4 images and some discussion. http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-hexanon-50mm-f1-4-t48850.html

Last edited by fermy on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buongiorno Pasquale,

I know this EE/AE thing can be confusing Smile

The change from EE to AE took place sometime during the first half of 1973. This change took place over several months, not from one day to the next. It also coincided with a change of color: The EE makings were yellow/orange, while the new AE markings were green. Some people think there were lots of left over stock of older aperture rings with EE markings lying about, but I tend to doubt this, mainly because the lenses with both green EE and AE markings are most often lenses that were introduced in 1973. Hexanons with green EE markings include the 24/2.8, the 28/3.5, the 50/1.7, the 50/1.4, the 57/1.2 and the 135/2.5. Of the five, only the second and the fifth are older lenses. So it would seem that for many months, Konica made aperture rings for the 50/1.7 and the others with both EE and AE markings, with both being painted green. The proportion seems to have been roughly 50/50, at least for the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7. As the lenses with the green EE markings were only made in 1973, their numbers are relatively small today, and some people look for them as a curiosity or a collector item. I believe it is for this reason that it is shown on Andreas Buhl's site - as an illustration of a curious production detail, not as a distinct version.

Both the EE and AE 50/1.7s have half aperture stops. But you have to check each individual lens for this or ask if you're buying online, because toward the end of production of the larger 50/1.7 version (until the end of 1976), Konica dropped this feature and there are some large version 50/1.7s with full aperture stops. BTW, the compact version has only full aperture stops (and its aperture also goes to f16, as does that of the larger version, in contrast to most other compact Hexanons, whose apertures close down to f22). Konica did away with half aperture stops with many lenses sometime in the mid to late 70s. The rationale for this deplorable cost-saving measure was that people were more likely to depend on automatic exposure than set their aperture by hand. Another illustration of the fact that "progress" usually means less choice. Sad

jj


Last edited by konicamera on Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the 50/1.4, 50/1.7, and 50/1.8. I don't have the 57/1.4, but if I have to choose one between the three, I would go for the 50/1.4 since I value the little extra speed and bokeh over the little more sharpness wide open for the 50/1.7 in which imo is hardly noticeable anyway unless you have to make large prints.

I absolutely agree to the above posts on the characteristics of these three lenses. They assemble to what I am experiencing on these three lenses as well and I prefer the 50/1.4 a little more because yes, maybe wide open is a little softer than the 1.7, but the great color rendition and bokeh (it's the bokeh that you want anyways when you are using wide open) is well worth the trade.

Overall, it depends on what you want and what you are using the lens for.


Last edited by bruzzo on Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't shoot wide open, so for me, the 1.7/50 is my preference.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't shoot wide open, so for me, the 1.7/50 is my preference.


It's coming ... few days again Cool



PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great! You got an EE. Smile
There will be a two-digit production code stamped in white on the baffle surrounding the rear optical element. It's first digit will probably be 3 (for 1973). The second digit is the month of production.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Great! You got an EE. Smile
There will be a two-digit production code stamped in white on the baffle surrounding the rear optical element. It's first digit will probably be 3 (for 1973). The second digit is the month of production.


when will come I'll give you these references Wink

regards

Pasquale


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Great! You got an EE. Smile
There will be a two-digit production code stamped in white on the baffle surrounding the rear optical element. It's first digit will probably be 3 (for 1973). The second digit is the month of production.


It's arrived Smile)



Last edited by versanteest on Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congratulations! So, what is the production code? I bet its probably 3N Smile


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Congratulations! So, what is the production code? I bet its probably 3N Smile


where is it ?
Pasquale


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the back of the lens. It's stamped in white over the baffle.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
On the back of the lens. It's stamped in white over the baffle.


Is this number 30 ? Shocked



PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those production codes are often smudged. That's 3O alright. The number stands for the year of manufacture and the letter (it's the letter 'O', not a zero). for the month. Hmmm, I was off by one month. Smile Your lens was made in August 1973.

Last edited by konicamera on Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:50 am; edited 1 time in total