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

Konica 85/1,8 hexanon AR EE
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dolo wrote:
hi iaza

those pictures are not impressive enough for wide open performances.

who said hexanons are good when wide open?


me.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you read here I said these pictures are sharp ?


Your statment was : who said hexanons are good when wide open?

I said me .

I didn't say these pictures are sharp....

I did answer for a generalized question about Hexanons, based on my experience I did bought and test almost all Hexanons among with Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena , Tamrons, Russians and some Leica in summary I think I have pretty good basic to say Hexanons are sharp or not sharp wide open.

What kind of background do you have to say , Hexanons are not sharp wide open ?

One sample , one lens can be soft , mater from photographer , handshaking and lens , but all ??


one of the latest Hexanons what I did try wide open.

http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-28mm-f1-8-uc-hexanon-t44594.html


PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i find that today, as opposed to years ago when we were all just shooting film, many people for some reason i dont understand just want to shoot wide open most of the time. shooting wide open today is kind of like when we used to shoot at hyperfocal settings--only we did that with a PURPOSE, which was to quickly capture fast moving street scenes and insure focus. shooting hyperfocally was an intentional tool we used in reportsge type photography.

imho, the present 'i must be able to shoot wide open all the time mania' we have now does not seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, nor imo, is it in the main thought out to any degree. its almost like a testosterone thing that 'my lens can shoot wide open and yours cant'. when these lenses were made, they were not intended to be shot wide open except in narrow situations of either achieving a specific artistic effect, extreme macro of tiny objects with camera tripod mounted, or because we couldnt change iso with film, for necessity shots in low light without flash that you couldnt get at a higher aperture. thats really it.

the wide open DOF on these lenses is simply too narrow for good 'everyday' shots and were not intended to be used for 'sharp' photos wide open. at 1.4 this lens has a DOF of a couple of inches! it is not physically possible for sharp portraits at that DOF. if you want a sharp tip of the nose, fine, but youd better use a tripod! if you want a softer portrait look fine. but if you want 'sharp' portraits perhaps we need to relearn the physics of photography. aperture setting is THE primary tool of a photographer from a technical point of view. up until recently aperutre setting was a well thought out choice made with DOF and end result in mind, based on operative conditions. today it seems more a matter of religious concept, a type of 'faith' never to be questioned. imo. abdicating that thought process and expecting every lens quality at every aperture and/or exclusively using open apertures to achieve all ends is not photography.

as for achieving great bokeh--another unnatural present day preoccupation, that same narrow DOF of these lenses makes that easily achievable at higher apertures. i daresay you will get great bokeh and tack sharpness from this lens at 2.8, so why the need to use it in a way neither it nor photographic precepts intend? so that when it predictably fails to achieve unrealistic goals we can criticize it? seems silly to me. use the lens the way it was made to be used, dont approach photography with the unrealistc notion that all lenses should excel wide open all the time, learn to control images through understanding DOF and aperture settings, and happiness and great results will follow.

Last edited by rbelyell on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:02 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With fast wide and normal lenses, I'm always interested in wide open performance as I'll likely be using them in low light. For middle of the road lengths, it becomes less important to me. For long lenses, again wide open performance interests me as I may need to use that aperture to get a fast shutter speed.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dolo wrote:
hi iaza

those pictures are not impressive enough for wide open performances.

who said hexanons are good when wide open?

what do you mean not impressive, regarding to sharpness or something else?
Look at my first post, that's clearly said, I choose takumar than this lens, for sharpness. but then I realize that this lens need more practice to achieve better result.
rbelyel is right, very thin dof is difficult to choose specially for moving model. That picture I took without she knew being captured, thus she's not pose like real model who will be make pose and stay still. its different case.
and I rare shot with tripod, my style is street shot. gear only camera & lens, no additional flash no tripod etc. in this way you can see some of my shot here.
one more thing, I dont edit the result at all. to make it more interesting result, I can edit it. but in lens sample I dont do that.

i the end.. maybe its not impressive enough for you, that's ok. everybodey has his own interest


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ok I got your point. I use NEX5. dreamy look for some people is better than razor sharp, specially for girl. I think this is the reason why Jupiter 9 old version is sharper than newer one. People want dreamy look, not sharper for portrait.
Can you show me what lens is better performance at wideopen? sample will be better.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well i would like to say i like the samples very much, i appreciate unmolested shots of what the lens can perform personally, but have to admit i can also agree with attila that samples posted are better reworked to give optimal look.
But imho i still prefer to see the straight from lens
I like the dreamy effect that this lens has wideopen and find the obsession of sharpness just as bad as the shooting wideopen,etc
I like lenses that have character, and one of the best i have for that is the chinon 1.7 50mm that renders oil like paintings, its not sharp but still somehow has magic in some pictures.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sure, Hexanons are not sharp wide open...




That was first pic I ever shot with a Hexanon and the cheapest one at that - 1.8/50 late version...


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good sample Ian.... (for Dolo)
its not difficult to find 50mm lens sharp at wide open.
itsn't proper to compare to this lens.
like rbelyell I want to know other 85mm lens performance.
For sharpness wide open, I don't use this lens. Voigtlander 90 apo lanthar very much satisfy me.but that's f3,5.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
good sample Ian.... (for Dolo)
its not difficult to find 50mm lens sharp at wide open.
itsn't proper to compare to this lens.
like rbelyell I want to know other 85mm lens performance.
For sharpness wide open, I don't use this lens. Voigtlander 90 apo lanthar very much satisfy me.but that's f3,5.


people just dont get it! when your DOF is two inches sharpness is not possible, nor is it intended by lens manufacturer. what is so hard to understand about this simple concept! it means ONLY 2INCHES WILL BE IN FOCUS, and less than that will be in 'perfect' focus. NO lens with this narrow DOF is going to be sharp in the way we expect, NONE EVER NOWHERE. and while using a vf vs lcd makes it possible to focus, the camera is irrelevent here, only physics is relevent.

Last edited by rbelyell on Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
IAZA wrote:
good sample Ian.... (for Dolo)
its not difficult to find 50mm lens sharp at wide open.
itsn't proper to compare to this lens.
like rbelyell I want to know other 85mm lens performance.
For sharpness wide open, I don't use this lens. Voigtlander 90 apo lanthar very much satisfy me.but that's f3,5.


people just dont get it! when you DOF is two inches sharpness is not possible, nor is it intended by lens manufacturer. what is so hard to understand about this simple concept! it means ONLY 2INCHES WILL BE IN FOCUS, and less than that will be in 'perfect' focus. NO lens with this narrow DOF is going to be sharp in the way we expect, NONE EVER NOWHERE. and while using a vf vs lcd makes it possible to focus, the camera is irrelevent here, only physics is relevent.

If you read my previous post, you see I understand what you mean. the lady pict detail is sharp enough for me. but not for Dolo. so I wrote the one you quote above for him Wink


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
NO lens with this narrow DOF is going to be sharp in the way we expect, NONE EVER NOWHERE.

Just one example http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14?start=1


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dimitri, i looked at your link and i'm sorry but i'm not quite certain what point you are trying to make, i apologize. i think you are saying these tests prove the zeiss planar T 85/1.4 is very sharp wide open. if so i agree with you, just as i agree the konica is sharp wide open. but neither lens is sharp wide open in the way people criticising the konica expect.

all will agree that nothing can be sharp if it is out of focus right? ok. as a matter of science, the boundaries of focus are set by the DOF--beyond the limits of DOF nothing will be in focus and nothing will be sharp, right? ok, now even WITHIN the DOF boundaries, only a small portion of the image will be in PERFECT focus, right? i think we can all agree on the science of these points.

next step, the DOF of both the zeiss and konica wide open are about 2-4 inches. so beyond that distance NOTHING IS IN FOCUS SO NOTHING CAN BE SHARP! and PERFECT sharpness is a subset of the 2-4" DOF!

now the tests you link to only apply ACROSS THE PLANE OF FOCUS of the zeiss. so youre correct, for a couple of inches wide open the zeiss is very sharp. and if you took the same pictures iaza took with the same camera you would get the same results because the DOF, thus the perfect focus plane, is too narrow to give the kind of portrait sharpness you seem to want from these lenses. again, stop down to 2.8 or even 4.0 and you will have both tack sharpness and great bokeh, as at 6-8 feet the DOF of the zeiss is still about 6inches...

moreover let me stress again that times were different when these lenses were made. at that time photographers did not want tack sharpness in portraits, they wanted some sharpness, but really atmospheric softness to the model was considered more 'flattering'. so 1.4 was designed with extremely shallow DOF to achieve that effect, not to achieve maximum sharpness. the designers knew that knowledgeable photographers would easily achieve the sharpness they wanted by stopping down, and the shallow DOF would still provide them with great bokeh. back then photographers wanted the flexibility to control how the image looked, and knew how to use aperture settings to achieve a variety of goals. it seems this is lost on many of todays 'photographers' who feel a lens must be shot wide open and must yield the same effects throughout the aperture range. that just ain't the case my friend.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't get what point you're trying to make. Of course I understand that a lens is only sharp within the dof. I like to shoot portraits wide open and focus on the eyes so the rest is slightly soft. Another reason for shooting wide open is to isolate a subject. I don't see what's wrong with shooting wide open, whether on film or digital. Sorry if I'm being thick but I just don't understand your point.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
dimitri, i looked at your link and i'm sorry but i'm not quite certain what point you are trying to make, i apologize. i think you are saying these tests prove the zeiss planar T 85/1.4 is very sharp wide open. if so i agree with you, just as i agree the konica is sharp wide open. but neither lens is sharp wide open in the way people criticising the konica expect.

Yes I mean the Zeiss ZA is very sharp already wide open. There are other even cheaper lenses already sharp wide open http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/421-canon_85_18_50d?start=1 And yes I think this specific copy of Konika on these posted samples is not very sharp wide open. I don't see anyone in this thread complaining about OOF area or corner sharpness so I don't understand your point mentioning this.

The proper usage of such lenses is another story and I agree with you that they should be stopped down a bit for portraits. But still they can be compared wide open and we can speak about their sharpness at this setting. Whether this setting is important and relevant to everyone is a question that everyone answers according to his own needs/preferences.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my point is 'sharp wide open' means sharp for a depth of less than 2 inches of perfect focus! the pictures iaza took, normal pictures everyone would take, have depths far far beyond this, so they mean nothing for analysis of sharpness.

if you want to measure sharpness wide open of these lenses you need to put them on a tripod and take pictures wide open of a flat wall or a fly or something with a depth of less than 2 inches. thats my point. to make any sharpness analysis from 'normal' shots that have multiple inches or feet of depth is not possible.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't get what point you're trying to make. Of course I understand that a lens is only sharp within the dof. I like to shoot portraits wide open and focus on the eyes so the rest is slightly soft. Another reason for shooting wide open is to isolate a subject. I don't see what's wrong with shooting wide open, whether on film or digital. Sorry if I'm being thick but I just don't understand your point.


there is nothing wrong with shooting wide open, and focusing on eyes with intent of 'sharp' eyes and softer everything else is EXACTLY what these lenses were made to do when shot wide open. thats obviously not what other people posting here who criticize this lens want. when one looks at iaza's picture of a person from head to toe taken wide open and criticizes the lens for being soft, that person doesnt know what they are talking about. you personally did not make this criticism, but others did. and you personally as you describe are using the lens perfectly and are expecting from it no more than it was intended to give.

my point is that using this, or the zeiss, to achieve a sharp and narrow POINT of focus within the frame is what we should expect. we should NOT expect the entire frame to be sharp unless the frame is made up of a flat wall.

as for 'isolating a subject', that can be achieved with these lenses up to F4.0 while still maintaining wonderful bokeh. there is no need to shoot these lenses wide open to isolate the subject unless you are happy with a sharp 'point' within the total frame and a softer image throughout the frame. if one wants to isolate the subject AND achieve sharpness throughout the frame one CANNOT shoot these lenses wide open, they must stop down. my point is one cannot criticize these lenses for 'lack of sharpness' when they use the lenses incorrectly.

Last edited by rbelyell on Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:49 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
my point is 'sharp wide open' means sharp for a depth of less than 2 inches of perfect focus! the pictures iaza took, normal pictures everyone would take, have depths far far beyond this, so they mean nothing for analysis of sharpness.

if you want to measure sharpness wide open of these lenses you need to put them on a tripod and take pictures wide open of a flat wall or a fly or something with a depth of less than 2 inches. thats my point. to make any sharpness analysis from 'normal' shots that have multiple inches or feet of depth is not possible.


Now you are talking about across the frame sharpness. This is not a strong point of such lenses wide open. But then if someone for some purpose requires this ability he can compare the lenses using a proper set up. But most people need and expect only a central sharpness from such lenses at wide open an I don't see any reason why it cannot be evaluated by examining the focus point only.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dimitri your test link spoke of 'across the frame sharpness', and the criticism of this lens was based in part on normal images where the subject was much deeper than these lenses can capture sharply wide open. these lenses DO have a central sharpness, but that cannot be judged from these photos.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
dimitri your test link spoke of 'across the frame sharpness', and the criticism of this lens was based in part on normal images where the subject was much deeper than these lenses can capture sharply wide open. these lenses DO have a central sharpness, but that cannot be judged from these photos.

Nope. There are 2 bars for each F setting on MTF graphs there - one for center and one for borders. When I said about the sharpness of this Konika it was about the focus point. Don't know what others had in mind.

There was basically only one statement about this lens performance:
Dolo wrote:
this lens does not perform good when wide open! your pictures shows dreamy look when wide open

How did you conclude from here what sharpness Dolo is talking about?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't get what point you're trying to make. Of course I understand that a lens is only sharp within the dof. I like to shoot portraits wide open and focus on the eyes so the rest is slightly soft. Another reason for shooting wide open is to isolate a subject. I don't see what's wrong with shooting wide open, whether on film or digital. Sorry if I'm being thick but I just don't understand your point.


there is nothing wrong with shooting wide open, and focusing on eyes with intent of 'sharp' eyes and softer everything else is EXACTLY what these lenses were made to do when shot wide open. thats obviously not what other people posting here who criticize this lens want. when one looks at iaza's picture of a person from head to toe taken wide open and criticizes the lens for being soft, that person doesnt know what they are talking about. you personally did not make this criticism, but others did. and you personally as you describe are using the lens perfectly and are expecting from it no more than it was intended to give.

my point is that using this, or the zeiss, to achieve a sharp and narrow POINT of focus within the frame is what we should expect. we should NOT expect the entire frame to be sharp unless the frame is made up of a flat wall.

as for 'isolating a subject', that can be achieved with these lenses up to F4.0 while still maintaining wonderful bokeh. there is no need to shoot these lenses wide open to isolate the subject unless you are happy with a sharp 'point' within the total frame and a softer image throughout the frame. if one wants to isolate the subject AND achieve sharpness throughout the frame one CANNOT shoot these lenses wide open, they must stop down. my point is one cannot criticize these lenses for 'lack of sharpness' when they use the lenses incorrectly.


Thankyou for clarification, I understand you fully now and am in complete agreement.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i find that today, as opposed to years ago when we were all just shooting film, many people for some reason i dont understand just want to shoot wide open most of the time. shooting wide open today is kind of like when we used to shoot at hyperfocal settings--only we did that with a PURPOSE, which was to quickly capture fast moving street scenes and insure focus. shooting hyperfocally was an intentional tool we used in reportsge type photography.

imho, the present 'i must be able to shoot wide open all the time mania' we have now does not seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, nor imo, is it in the main thought out to any degree. its almost like a testosterone thing that 'my lens can shoot wide open and yours cant'. when these lenses were made, they were not intended to be shot wide open except in narrow situations of either achieving a specific artistic effect, extreme macro of tiny objects with camera tripod mounted, or because we couldnt change iso with film, for necessity shots in low light without flash that you couldnt get at a higher aperture. thats really it.

the wide open DOF on these lenses is simply too narrow for good 'everyday' shots and were not intended to be used for 'sharp' photos wide open. at 1.4 this lens has a DOF of a couple of inches! it is not physically possible for sharp portraits at that DOF. if you want a sharp tip of the nose, fine, but youd better use a tripod! if you want a softer portrait look fine. but if you want 'sharp' portraits perhaps we need to relearn the physics of photography. aperture setting is THE primary tool of a photographer from a technical point of view. up until recently aperutre setting was a well thought out choice made with DOF and end result in mind, based on operative conditions. today it seems more a matter of religious concept, a type of 'faith' never to be questioned. imo. abdicating that thought process and expecting every lens quality at every aperture and/or exclusively using open apertures to achieve all ends is not photography.

as for achieving great bokeh--another unnatural present day preoccupation, that same narrow DOF of these lenses makes that easily achievable at higher apertures. i daresay you will get great bokeh and tack sharpness from this lens at 2.8, so why the need to use it in a way neither it nor photographic precepts intend? so that when it predictably fails to achieve unrealistic goals we can criticize it? seems silly to me. use the lens the way it was made to be used, dont approach photography with the unrealistc notion that all lenses should excel wide open all the time, learn to control images through understanding DOF and aperture settings, and happiness and great results will follow.


I wish I'd written every word of this. That's why I think it's worth quoting again in full. Thankyou Tony.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Dolo, I now have 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 Hexanons too, I need to try those out, may be even sharper as the 1.8/50 was the budget offering.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dolo i think youre wrong. below i dug up test shots i did with my copy on my ep2. i think its plenty sharp wide open when you understand the narrow DOF, so i blew up the in focus 'point' on each:


#1

#2

#3

#4


as for 'dreamy look', many portrait photographers (especially older ones) strive for that look and most portrait lenses can deliver that look and a wide open aperture is how one delivers it. like a great photographer, a great lens is versatile--it doesnt render the same way acroos the aperture scale. my planar is dreamy at 1.4 and my jupiter is dreamy at 2.0. all three are sharp at a narrow point wide open and provide what used to be called 'flattering' portrait rendering. as you stop down, the focus plane deepens, the overall sharpness spreads across the image frame, and the 'dreamy' quality magically disappears.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3