| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
siudym
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 73
Location: Poland
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:42 am Post subject: Konica Hexanon AR 52/1.8 vs Nikkor 35/1.8 DX -wide open test |
 |
|
siudym wrote:
Hexanon lens 52 is amazing, I'm surprised his sharpness wide open, compared it with the DX Nikkor 35 / 1.8, which is known for its great sharpness wide open.
Test/Compare wide open - camera FinePix S3 Pro, JPG out of camera, resized 1600px:
Original, full-sized files:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/13icpwv1z3fg6i6/hexanon52vs35nikkorDX.zip?dl=0
1.hexanon 1.8:
1.nikkor 1.8:
2.hexanon 1.8:
2.nikkor 1.8:
3.hexanon 1.8:
3.nikkor 1.8:
4.hexanon 1.8:
4.nikkor 1.8:
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/siudym |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014
Posts: 784
Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
Yes, the old 52 f/1.8 is a good performer. I still like mine after buying a 50 f/1.7 because the vintage Konica webpage stated the newer lens is much sharper. But the 52 still can get the job done with edge to edge sharpness. My copy is also quite center sharp at f/1.8.
_________________
"The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6008
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
You have two excellent lenses there.
Both produce very fine results.
I don't have the Hexanon, but the Nikkor is one of my favourites when I am making images in a hurry and need the AF.
OH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guardian
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 1749
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
guardian wrote:
Many thanks for posting regarding the Hexanon 52. I have upgraded my opinion of this lens in accord with this thread; live and learn. It is difficult, I guess, to discover a poor Hexanon lens. They are all so good! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014
Posts: 784
Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
The side benefit of people seeking a copy of the razor-sharp 50 /f1.7, was that the 52 /f1.8 was being ignored and prices remained very low. One can scoop up this lens for $5-10. What a bargain!
I guess that's going to end after this thread, LOL!
These three were taken wide open...
 DSC03103 by wNG 555, on Flickr
 bOKEH by wNG 555, on Flickr
 DSC00464 - Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f1.8 by wNG 555, on Flickr
A couple more since I think the lens deserves praise.
Stopped down to f/3.5 or f/4...
 DSC09828 - Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f1.8 by wNG 555, on Flickr
At f/16...
 DSC09777 - Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f1.8 by wNG 555, on Flickr
 DSC09776 - Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f1.8 by wNG 555, on Flickr
From f/8 to f/2.8.
 DSC00490 - Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f1.8 by wNG 555, on Flickr
 tHIS iS wHAT iT sOUNDS lIKE wHEN dOVEs fLY by wNG 555, on Flickr
 dAILY rITUAL by wNG 555, on Flickr
_________________
"The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6008
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
A very capable lens for sure.
I was also seduced by the reputation of the AR 1.7/50 and bought one to try.
I already had an AR 1.8/40 so decided to compare the two.
I have to say that even though the 1.7/50 was good, it was not better than the 1.8/40 - and in many cases I found the 1.8/40 to be a better lens.
Further to that I had many other 50 or 55mm lenses that were better than the 1.7/50 AR Hexanon.
I sold the 50mm as a result.
Cheers
OH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2927
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
I'm impatient to try some more examples of konica. I have the 135 3.2. It is quite good. I recently p/u a lot with camera and 4 lenses 135 3.5, 50 1.7, 52 1.8, and 28 3.5. (50 USD plus 20 to ship from FL to the west coast) Hasn't come in yet but I am looking forward to it.
With the increase in sales of NEX and A7 mirrorless cameras I recommend getting in while prices are still low.
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| jamaeolus wrote: |
I'm impatient to try some more examples of konica. I have the 135 3.2. It is quite good. I recently p/u a lot with camera and 4 lenses 135 3.5, 50 1.7, 52 1.8, and 28 3.5. (50 USD plus 20 to ship from FL to the west coast) Hasn't come in yet but I am looking forward to it.
With the increase in sales of NEX and A7 mirrorless cameras I recommend getting in while prices are still low. |
All good for sure, I found 28mm f3.5 and 50mm 1.7 was damn good 
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014
Posts: 784
Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
That's a great deal!
+1 on the 50 f/1.7 and 28 f/3.5 (especially if it's the 7 elements 7 groups version). They are superb.
I had a positive experience with my 50 f/1.7, both versions (EE and AE) and did find them a notable improvement over the 52 f/1.8. But all are excellent shooters.
I have the 135 f/3.5 too, but haven't given it any time on the camera yet.
_________________
"The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
| WNG555 wrote: |
| I still like mine after buying a 50 f/1.7 because the vintage Konica webpage stated the newer lens is much sharper. |
I read this all the time and the newer Hexanon may be a good lens, but I like the old 1.8/52 much more.. especially wide open it does a wonderful job.
Over the years I sold every 1.7/50 Hexanon I had, but keept the 1.8/52...
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
A very capable lens for sure.
I was also seduced by the reputation of the AR 1.7/50 and bought one to try.
I already had an AR 1.8/40 so decided to compare the two.
I have to say that even though the 1.7/50 was good, it was not better than the 1.8/40 - and in many cases I found the 1.8/40 to be a better lens.
Further to that I had many other 50 or 55mm lenses that were better than the 1.7/50 AR Hexanon.
I sold the 50mm as a result.
Cheers
OH |
Hmm, it sounds like you had a duff 1.7/50.
I say this because the 1.7/50 should be noticeably better than the 1.8/40 which was a budget item.
Also, the 1.7/50 should be among the very sharpest and overall best performing 50s; my copy is sharper than all my copies of the Pancolar 1.8/50 and sharper than my Planar 1.8/50.
Ah well, the vagaries of lenses that have lived long lives....
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
seems there are lot's of "duff" 1.7/50 Hexanon... I had a lot over the years in nealy every condition and think none of them was significant better than the 1.8/40
Don't get me wrong.. it's still a good lens, but "among the very sharpest and overall best performing 50s"? Well... not for me..
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There should be a marked difference between the performance of the 1.7/50 and the 1.8/40. The 40 has noticeable coma wide open that doesn't go away until f4 and has poor corners until f4. Flare and contrast are both markedly inferior to the 50 too, the 40 doesn't handle back lit situations. The 40 is a good lens, but not a great one; it's strength is in it's central sharpness which is good even wide open, but the bokeh is unpleasant for my eyes so it's a lens I never use; I have three or four other pancake lenses that I prefer. The 40, being a pancake, is something of a compromised design - they gave up some quality in order to get the small size and cheap price and where you see these compromises are in the soft corners and the lower level of corrections, especially for coma.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
siudym
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 73
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
siudym wrote:
some wide open f1.8 samples:
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/siudym |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Konica's lenses are almost all very good.
The 1,7/50 remind me a bit of the summicron M 2/50 2° version.
The 1,8/52 surprised me a lot. I never had it, but didn't trust in it high class category, but he has it.
When I had the 1,8/40 and the 1,7/50 did some proofs and I couldn't find important differences. The more visible one was the cold cast of the 1,7/50 and the warm one of the 1,8/40. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I just did a quick test with the A7II (24MP FF) and the Konica lenses
1) Hexanon 1.8/52mm (late all black version according to http://buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e52_18.html)
2) Hexanon 1.7/50mm (later version according to http://buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e50_17.html)
3) Hexanon 1.8/40mm
I was shooting landscape, "diagonal horizon", and wide open / f4 / f8.
Both the 1.8/52mm and the 1.7/50mm gave nearly identical results, the 1.8/52 having slightly less corner contrast at f1.8, but perfect corners at f4, while the 1.7/50mm had a slightly better contrast at f1.7 and slightly less corner details at f4.
The 1.8/40mm was, as far as i can see from just a few shots, as sharp as the other two (but certainly no big differences).
Minolta MD-III 1.7/50mm and MD-III 1.4/50mm were nearly identical as the Konica lenses above.
Stephan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
