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

Konica Hexanon 1.4/57 EE AR
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:07 am    Post subject: Konica Hexanon 1.4/57 EE AR Reply with quote

Panasonic G1






PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, these are beautiful images - especially the first and last! Smile


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never tried one of these, colour is really good.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mistake... Konica is still inexpensive and close to top.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Attila, this 1.4/57 is a wonderful lens, I prefer it to the later 1.4/50 as it has more vintage character to it's images. Not hard to find and still cheap compared to other 1.4 lenses of the same level (of which there are not many).


PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last pic is my fave, great results with the 57!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it convertable to EOS? Or does it have the same short rear lens to sensor distance as the 57/1.2?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely images. The processing and size prevent me from judging correctly but it looks almost as good than my Hexanon AR AE 50/1.7 Smile

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

8310 wrote:
Is it convertable to EOS? Or does it have the same short rear lens to sensor distance as the 57/1.2?

No.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree with Attila, this 1.4/57 is a wonderful lens, I prefer it to the later 1.4/50 as it has more vintage character to it's images. Not hard to find and still cheap compared to other 1.4 lenses of the same level (of which there are not many).



I agree that the 57 has its own flavor of rendering, that lacking in character quality though is most evident in the Hex 50 1.7 and the 50 1.4 is a compromise lens between the three famous Hexanon 50's. The 1.7 might be the sharpest, but it's not the best by a long shot. As long as there are people preferring the pleasing rendering of the 57, and are capable of correctly exploiting the thin DOF and utilizing the silkiness of wide-open the 1.4's makes it a fact. No lens is best by any means, clearly sharpest is not best if one sees no character, can't be best and flawed? The boggled association that sharpest means best, is an imaginary assumption from some forgotten fairytale ... there's no basis to support it and it's all just assumed sharp equates to best....

.... if you have either 1.4, what you will discover (if you're honest?) is that you won't need or even use the 1.7. If you need to see a clear difference, compare the 3 using B&W where the 57 really comes into its own efflorescence as users have described?



Last edited by Wonder Lens on Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

8310 wrote:
Is it convertable to EOS? Or does it have the same short rear lens to sensor distance as the 57/1.2?

The film to flange distance (register) of the K/AR mount is 40.5mm. With the exception of the Alpa mount, this was the shortest SLR film to flange distance in the business. All Konica Hexanon SLR lenses are in this mount (actually, there was an earlier Konica mount, but its film to flange distance is identical).


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
I agree that the 57 has its own flavor of rendering, that lacking in character quality though is more evident in the Hex 50 1.7 and I consider the 50 1.4 a compromise lens between the (overblown) sharp of the 1.7 and the pleasing character quality of the 57. The 1.7 may be the sharpest, but it's not the best as long as there are people preferring the pleasing rendering of the 57.... if you have either 1.4, you won't need the 1.7 or get around to using it much either...$30 is what they give for one today so you figure?

All those lenses have their own character and serve their purpose admirably. Sharpness just happens to be the criterion that most people judge a lens by, and the 50/1.7 is one of the sharpest 50s out there. Yes, that's simplistic, but so it is in my experience. The reason this particular lens is so cheap (all Hexanons are still relatively cheap, as Attila already pointed out) is that the sharpest of Hexanons standard lenses was also the most common one between 1973 and 1981. By far.
Incidentally, your 50/1.4 is the second, compact, version (made from 1978). The 50/1.7 was also made in two versions (from 1973 and from 1976), the first of which is more pleasing character-wise (and usually sharper too).


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
Wonder Lens wrote:
I agree that the 57 has its own flavor of rendering, that lacking in character quality though is more evident in the Hex 50 1.7 and I consider the 50 1.4 a compromise lens between the (overblown) sharp of the 1.7 and the pleasing character quality of the 57. The 1.7 may be the sharpest, but it's not the best as long as there are people preferring the pleasing rendering of the 57.... if you have either 1.4, you won't need the 1.7 or get around to using it much either...$30 is what they give for one today so you figure?

All those lenses have their own character and serve their purpose admirably. Sharpness just happens to be the criterion that most people judge a lens by, and the 50/1.7 is one of the sharpest 50s out there. Yes, that's simplistic, but so it is in my experience. The reason this particular lens is so cheap (all Hexanons are still relatively cheap, as Attila already pointed out) is that the sharpest of Hexanons standard lenses was also the most common one between 1973 and 1981. By far.
Incidentally, your 50/1.4 is the second, compact, version (made from 1978). The 50/1.7 was also made in two versions (from 1973 and from 1976), the first of which is more pleasing character-wise (and usually sharper too).


I revised my comments, because this is about the 57 1.4. The essence of my point; if "one" person does not agree with a view, the only fact existing is the fact that there are multiple opinions and forming groups, followings, beliefs, whatever only makes the opinions political and further from fact.

There is no scientific evidence or sources to support any fact involving any of these Hex 50's and the reality is only an idea expressed as if it is fact, because some are pushing something as best, and their opinion gains support...then it gets lost in being a supposed fact and not honestly as an opinion, which is all it is in the first place?

The one thing I'm not worried about is convincing anyone my eyes are right, I control my eyes and consider my process wholly proprietary and unique so if I accepted some opinion from another person on what is best? Pretty obvious the only thing I achieved is contradicting my own being? So part of me wants to see and another part doubts, so I try one. I don't fall in line and accept things as they are, that's my nature to challenge and separate fact from fiction (aka opinion).


Last edited by Wonder Lens on Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
I revised my comments, because this is about the 57 1.4 and the essence of my point was this; if "one" person does not agree with a view, the only facts existing are the fact that there is two opinions...and no facts.

There is no scientific evidence or sources to support or uphold a single alleged fact involving any of these Hex 50's ... makes it all only opinion, not fact.

So to be clear about my Point, as long as others have varying views there is no best of anything.

If I prefer the 57 rendering quality and consider the 50 1.7 plain, that's my opinion, your opinions are not facts either, btw. No mislabeled fact is changing how my eyes see ...what this settles is; to me the 57 is the best lens and to you it's not.

The one thing I'm not worried about is convincing anyone my eyes are right, or being convinced a lens is better just because someone said it was?

If you are reading this, try B&W and see for yourself and then draw your own conclusions? But don't accept any of these opinionated rules rating Hexanon glass as if they are factual and not the opinions they actually are? buhla.de/index.html is a bible for information, not a rating service I would accept

My lens versions shown above have no relevance, and this subjective evaluation or varying versions is largely misinformation intended to convince people of things not actually there and just hyperbole...again opinion. If I see things one way, you another ...what you are is not me then

Wow, you seem to take what I wrote very personally. Take it easy, I just meant to volunteer some information that seemed pertinent to me, and perhaps interesting to others, not to question your right to hold opinions. Please take it as it was meant.
But just for the record, I have used Hexanons for 4 decades now, so I feel my impressions are not based on “being convinced a lens is better just because someone said it was”. I’ve also done much research into them and the info I provided about different versions is not “misinformation” but factual. Moreover, the performance of these lenses has actually been objectively measured in the seventies and eighties, and their reputation is not based on hearsay or “opinionated rules” (whose?).


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 50 1.4 and 57 1.4 resized to make them appear proportionally equal, straight jpegs out of the box. The 50 does slightly better from 1.4 to 2.8, by F4 the 57 is slightly sharper (here). I use this as my standardized portrait model for testing lenses. I'm not taking anything personal about anything I'm aware of and how that even enters this discussion or belongs is a mystery. I have an opinion on Hexanon lenses, it shouldn't matter if I used one 5 seconds ago or 50 years ago, what matters is I have an opinion to.......
and as a matter of fact, I went on my first photo trip in 1966 cross-country from STL to LA, up the Cal Coast to Oregon and back home across the northern way...through the Cricket country and the Tetons and Yellowstone, to the Black Hills .... then home.... 52 years ago

These 2 show me all I need to like or not like, anyone should have their own preferences....if what's best to you has to be what someone said or wrote then you're going about things all wrong in my opinion....what people say or write should interest and lead you to comparing lenses and deciding what suits you best or needs best. Followers are always second they say ? Depends on whose way is more important with you that matters most, someone else or your own?

I have 3 or 4 of these 50's, this is my favorite above. This 57 1.4 above is just character rich, I gave up carrying my Minolta 58 1.4 pf because of this one