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

Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4 WOW!!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:06 am    Post subject: Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4 WOW!! Reply with quote

I had never thought about trying this lens, until I came upon one more or less by accident. It is quite simply remarkable, I think that I like it more than the 50mm f/1.4. More thoughts on this lens here http://fourbillionyears.org/timeless-beauty-the-konica-hexanon-57mm-f-1-4/

#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:10 am    Post subject: Re: Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4 WOW!! Reply with quote

fourbillionyears wrote:
I had never thought about trying this lens, until I came upon one more or less by accident. It is quite simply remarkable, I think that I like it more than the 50mm f/1.4. More thoughts on this lens here http://fourbillionyears.org/timeless-beauty-the-konica-hexanon-57mm-f-1-4/

Absolutely great photos, I especially like the one of the cat.
The 57/1.4 is the first Hexanon I ever used. It came as standard on the T2 I got myself back in 1978. Mine was earlier that your two black ones, though. It had an aluminum ring with the DOF scale and the earlier, amber colored coatings. The later, dark blue/violet coatings (CDC) were introduced in 1967-68, so yours have the later ones. Perhaps one with the earlier coatings would make for an interesting comparison?
See the page on lens versions on my site (I am thinking of the A-type and, especially, the B type): https://sites.google.com/site/tks0en/3-hexanon-ar-lenses/-lens-types


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Perhaps one with the earlier coatings would make for an interesting comparison?

A and B types should have the same (amber) coating? Is there any optical difference between them, and with the later CDC-coated lens?
Also, I know that you regard the f/1.2 very highly - do you have a feeling for how it compares to the 57 f/1.4 ? If one does not need the extra half stop (thank you Sony Very Happy ), are there any differences that justify the several hundred dollars that the faster lens costs? Sharpness, bokeh, color, contrast of the f/1.4 are pretty impressive! This was a kit lens in the 1960's ... sic transit gloria mundi.

And Thank You Dog for the kind words!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fourbillionyears wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps one with the earlier coatings would make for an interesting comparison?

A and B types should have the same (amber) coating? Is there any optical difference between them, and with the later CDC-coated lens?
Also, I know that you regard the f/1.2 very highly - do you have a feeling for how it compares to the 57 f/1.4 ? If one does not need the extra half stop (thank you Sony Very Happy ), are there any differences that justify the several hundred dollars that the faster lens costs? Sharpness, bokeh, color, contrast of the f/1.4 are pretty impressive! This was a kit lens in the 1960's ... sic transit gloria mundi.

And Thank You Dog for the kind words!


It’s hard to speak authoritatively about coatings on Hexanons, as no hard info is available. But to all appearances, the A-type and B-type Hexanons did share the same amber/straw color coatings. These coatings existed for only 3-4 years before the CDC ones came along and some slight modifications may or may not have been introduced during that period. If you scroll down on the page I mentioned yesterday, you will see a detailed description of Hexanon lens types and versions, and of the two distinct B-type production runs. The earlier ones have the older coatings and the later ones have the CDC coatings. I am not aware of any optical differences between the various versions of the 57/1.4 besides the coatings. The construction is the same.

As to the 57/1.2, it does have its distinct personality, like the 57/1.4. It has very good contrast and amazing sharpness for a lens this fast, even at 1.2. My friend Christophe has written the most impressive elegy about this lens I have ever seen:

“Voila la plus étonnante optique ultra lumineuse que j'ai pu connaitre, à la personnalité marquée, au piqué stupéfiant de PO à f:16 tout en restant fine et douce, au bokeh rutilant spectaculaire à PO et doux en dessous, qui sera merveilleuse en toutes circonstances, sublime pour les portraits. Quand on pense que le capteur des Olympus est microscopique et que nous sommes loin, vu le diamètre du verre, du "télécentrique" (argument marketing) dont se vante Olympus , on ne peut qu'être admiratif devant le travail de Konica, à une époque où les moyens n'étaient pas ceux de nos jours... Aucune de mes optiques Olympus ne lui arrive à la cheville.
On notera le rendu très doux et lissé de la peau, un véritable appétit pour les couleurs, une tenue aux ombres et aux nuances de hautes lumières qui console sur mon capteur Olympus des "cramés bouchés" des Zuiko et cette infime diffusion (vibrante et très fine) sur les transitions brutales (voir le crop AC) qui en fait une optique très différente de l'hexanon 50 f:1:1.7.”
Source : http://www.street-photo.fr/fr/tests-et-comparatifs/7/5

One of the reasons I like it is for is the razor thin DOF. I once uploaded a photo I took of my son: http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-hexanon-ar-1-2-57-on-the-way-t72517.html. I didn’t quite nail the focus on the eyelashes, as I had intended, but the thin DOF is perfectly visible, as is the sharpness and the bokeh, which I find quite pleasing.

@ “Sic transit….”
Yes, indeed Sad


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A strong endorsement indeed and backed up with images. The bokeh does remind me of the 57/1.4, which may be a result of the same person (team?) designing both lenses more or less at the same time. Christophe is certainly right that this lens is very different from the 50/1.7, that is the same feeling that I immediately got when comparing the 57/1.4 with the 50/1.4.
I may start hunting for a 1.2 after all...


PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1

1 and 2 my faves.
All the best,
Sandro


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like Dog


PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 I carried this around with my MC PF 58mm 1.4 of which I am very fond of also, both are mentioned as prime examples in a 90's Popular Photography, in being the Japanese most direct forms of the original 1936 CZ Biotar 58/2 design( which the article was regarding over it's historical significance and prominence ). The coatings are exactly why I prefer it, the results and the latitude of tonal shades in grayscale is outstanding for me. The MC 58 1.4 PF ,
is a short fused flare missile and doesn't focus as close, however it nails distances superbly and with stellar resolution stopped down,
wide-open it's not a favorite in a horse race, wide-open it has a unique softness and special rendering that is more on pleasing the side
so it has unique characteristics you can not discount. The Hexanon, focuses closer and has a tighter and a more rectangular shape than oval to its hyper focal area, sharper drop offs focus to hyper focus.... Really they are two complete separate lenses of the same identical mold and focal length ...you can prefer one over the other....but you shouldn't say one is better since they see things differently, we should too...and beyond whatever "better" implies in the first place? I think since they are both heritage lenses of the relative same focal length and speeds, they are a grand example for illustrating why a best 28, 50, or any focal length is just not practical or logical..... no 2 more alike yet completely different pair I know of ... and the 58 PF is 2 lenses in one, soft rendering wide open is extremely unique


Last edited by wildlight images on Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:37 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having pitted the minolta 58mm f1.4 against the konica 57mm f1.4 myself, and while I love both. I have to admit that the Konica has something special to the rendering, something that is just magical and pops compared to the minolta in my opinion.
Good sample shots.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's beautiful.
I have the AR 50 f/1.4 and it feels different indeed.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[img]
fourbillionyears wrote:
A strong endorsement indeed and backed up with images. The bokeh does remind me of the 57/1.4, which may be a result of the same person (team?) designing both lenses more or less at the same time. Christophe is certainly right that this lens is very different from the 50/1.7, that is the same feeling that I immediately got when comparing the 57/1.4 with the 50/1.4.
I may start hunting for a 1.2 after all...


Whoo Turtle I ended up getting the konica 57mm 1.4 and got the 50mm 1.4 on the way after reading your blog review/posts on them...gonna compare and see which suits my style more, though i'm not sure if this 57mm is gonna be beat.
I got a few konica lenses after loads of posts on this site (28,35,40,50.135) and officially spoiled with konica color/character.
Here's two pics of the 57mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.7 of the same subject,the character difference is night and day.

1. 57mm 1.4
2. 50mm 1.7

#1


#2