Manual Focus Lenses Forum

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

I also think that the only thing wrong with 1.8/40 are people that claim it to be the "the sharpest lens ever". Otherwise, it's a pretty decent lens, probably sharper than CV 1.4/40 and a fraction of the cost...

Most good 50mm get sharper quicker, IMHO this one is as good as any 50 at f4 and beyond, there is some penalty in 1.8-2.8 range, but then it's a pancake and it's wider, overall a lens well worth having.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

If your Hexanon 1.7/50 is softer than your FD 1.4/50 then you have a bad copy of the Hexanon. The FD 1.4/50 didn't approach the same level of sharpness until f4, and I had two copies of the FD.

The 1.7/50 was not a budget lens, that was the 1.8/50.

Which version of the 1.7/50 do you have? Mine is the earlier one with larger recessed front element. It's as sharp as any 50mm lens I have tried, I directly compared it to the Topcon 1.8/58 which is another lens that people say is one of the sharpest ever made for 35mm and I couldn't discern much between them in sharpness or micro contrast, they are both really top level among old 50s.

Remember, the JDC chose Konica as the sharpness standard to judge other lenses by.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Ian, we've been at it for ages. I think you've had a rotten luck with FDs, not just 50/1.4, but some others as well. I've had 3 copies of FDn 50/1.4, all 3 are/were outstanding. I wish I had some expensive Zeiss/Leica glass to compare them to, but I simply don't see a point in chasing them. Testing on NEX (not by me, but the site is highly recommended) shows FD 50/1.4 outperforming most lenses: http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1527

I'll just repost some of my FD 50/1.4 shots. First, wide open shots. Note that the wedding picture was intentionally softened with negative clarity and contrast.

And here are some stopped-down shots. The wedding picture is a heavy crop, so what you are seeing is, in fact, 50% view.

I am pretty sure my 50/1.7 Hexanon copy is very good, for what it's worth it turned out sharper on the test chart than 50/1.4 Hexanon, which I love dearly. 1.7 was the budget lens before they've introduced 1.8. Mine is lighter version without half-stops, green AE, 7522391 serial.

ForenSeil · Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:04 am

My Konica 40/1.8 became good @F8 - and I know cheap zooms which are better on APS-C.
I don't wan't to say that it's a crap lens - but it's the worst Konica prime I tried so far.
Here an example
I don't remember aperture, maybe F2.8

Resolution is OK but you can see very strong CAs and glow already at VGA size!
100% crops

My opinion on it is that you should avoid it - all the ~50mm+28mm+35mm Konicas are somewhat better, as well as the 45mm F2 Minolta

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I think there must have been something wrong with that 1.8/40, I've never seen CA like that from the 3 copies I've had.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

I've just recalled that the same guy that I've linked to in my previous post has a review of 40/f1.8 Hexanon http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1902

To me it looks like corners are a bit weak compared to a really good 50mm (but usable) even on stopping down, CA is not an issue past f2.8.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Here are the results of the test of standard lenses Popular Photography published in July 1976 (not a Cosina in sight):

While I understand that it is wise to take such tests with a grain of salt, to reject them outright seems far removed from common sense. The lens' reputation is based on the reports of thousands of users and on tests similar to the one above. I respect your experience with the Hexanon 50/1.7 fermy, but I strongly suggest you try some of the earlier exemplars of this lens. The first version is usually considered better than the later compact version. I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised.

BTW, I got those charts from someone many years ago. I don't remember anymore who it was, but I think he sent them to me for a purpose not altogether different than the one they serve here.

Bille · Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Those charts are very interesting and fit with my own experiences. I am familiar with the Canon, Konica and Minolta lenses and my opinion of them was always that the Konica was the best, the Minolta very close behind and the Canon not as good upto f4, but at f4, f5.6, f8, it was almost as sharp as both the Konica and the Minolta. I was using them on APS-C so it's the central performance I looked at.

The version of the Kexanon 1.7/50 I have is the earlier one, it has a larger and more recessed front element than the later version.

One thing those charts do tell me - at f4, the differences are pretty small, which is what I expected.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

hoanpham · Expire: 2015-01-18

Ok. Tested my copy of 40/1.8.
My conclusion is:
It 's among the worst lens i ever tested, no, it is the worst among 40/50/55 focals at f1.7-f2 class.
CA and PF as hell.
Wide open is soft and glow.

I will give it another chance by testing the second copy...

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

It's widely accepted that the 40/1.8 is a lens that has to be stopped down. But it's quite nice if you do. See it as a mis-labelled 40/2.8 with the extra bonus of f1.8 for the dark moments where you have no other choice. Stepped down to f4 the lens behaves quite well (just as you would have to do with most f2.8 lenses also in order to get the best out of the lens).

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

A lot of lenses need to be stopped down to f4 to give their best. Canon FD 1.4/50 and 1.8/50 and EF 1.8/50 I would all place in that category - mediocre performance until closed to f4. The Hexanon 1.7/50 is overall sharper and better at 2.8 than the FD and EF 1.8/50s are at f4, in my experience. Therefore I'd call the Konica 'excellent' and the Canons 'competent'. I tried the Canon FL 1.2/58 and that was another lens that needed to be closed to f4 to reach acceptable sharpness (acceptable to my eyes, that is) so maybe that is how Canon design their 'normal' lenses - to give their best at f4-f8? Overall, I've always found Canon FD lenses to be at a lower level than Konica Hexanons, Canon make faster versions that are probably a fair bit better, but the consumer level slower ones - 1.8/50, 2.8/28, 2.8/35, 2.8/100, 3.5/135, all were a level below the equivalent Konicas. I'm sure the faster Canons such as the 2/28, 2/35, 2.5/135 are better, but the base level consumer ones have never impressed me, similar level of performance to the better third party lenses and a little below the level of Konica, Minolta and Nikon lenses I've also used. I suspect Canon did this because most of their customers didn't need better and for those that did, they would prefer them to buy their more expensive faster lenses. Or maybe I've just had bad copies of the Canons, but I have had at least 8 or 9 of them and none of them have impressed me, apart from the old FL 2.5/35 and that is an example of a faster lens, probably the consumer level FL 3.5/35 is less good.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Any normal lens will be at its best at F4-F8, that's not just Canon. Scratch that, any good 35mm lens will be like that, Canon, Zeiss or Konica, does not matter.

Yes, fast expensive Canons are generally better than slower consumer level Canons, that's just common sense, isn't it? I am sure that 28mm f1.8 UC Hexanon is also a bit better than 28mm f3.5, people paying for UC version would be pretty pissed otherwise. And no, consumer level Canons are not crap or inferior to anything Konica by default.

Here are the tests of consumer level 35 and 50mm Canons, both look quite good in comparison with Hexanon pancake, which we've agreed is a decent lens.
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1546
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=3019

FD 50mm f1.8 SC on NEX-3

Hexanon 40mm f1.8 on NEX-3

FD 35mm f2.8 on NEX-3

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

@ Fermy:

I find your use of the expression “budget option” in connection with the 50/1.7 incomprehensible. For me, the term implies something that one settles for because one is on a budget – something that is, by definition, of lower quality. That is absolutely not the case for this lens. As I wrote yesterday, the only lenses Konica made to meet the needs of those seeking “budget options,” are the three Hexars. It is also the first time I see the term used in connection with any Konica lens other than the three Hexars in over 35 years of picture taking with Hexanon lenses.

Some things cost less because they are simpler to make, not because the maker cut corners making them (as you suggested in an earlier post). Any 1.7 lens will cost less than the same lens in 1.4 version, simply because it is easier to make, contains less glass and is easier to correct. All other factors being equal, I don’t see why a smaller max aperture necessarily makes a lens a “budget option”. If that were the case, no professional photographer would use a 1.7.

A 1.7 lens may be more desirable than a 1.4 one for technical reasons that are self-evident for anyone who’s been in photography for any length of time and that have nothing to do with being or not being on a budget. If I were seeking sharpness above all, I would generally take a 1.7 over a 1.4. If the charts I uploaded show anything, it is that in the mid 1970s, the Hexanon 50/1.7 was basically as good as anything else available on the market for 35mm SLRs.

Going into whose lens was sharper in what corner, at what aperture in what light, etc., etc., etc., is just splitting hairs. I dare anyone to actually see such differences on a print with the naked eye. When you consider how few of us actually shoot in conditions even approaching those in which such testing is conducted (steady tripod, MLU, 50 ASA film, etc.), the entire issue becomes ridiculous IMO.

And I certainly don’t take such test results as “gospel”. I never stated that “Hexanon is the sharpest lens” or "sharpest [lens] ever built by anyone". Neither did Andreas Buhl or Popular Photography. Only Modern Photography said of THE SAMPLE of the 40/1.8 they tested that it was THE sharpest lens they had ever tested, and I have no reason to doubt this claim. If, as you suggested, such mags would praise certain lenses because they had to make money, I would point out that there was far more to be made from outfits like Canon and Nikon, both of which had advertising budgets putting Konica’s efforts in this area to shame.

The only reason I got involved in this discussion was to show (with some evidence, I think) that praise for the 50/1.7 (and the 40/1.8 ) is not “just fanboy speak”, or “BS”, as you suggested, but is grounded in objective evidence. That’s all.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

You find my use of term "budget lens" incomprehensible because in your eyes it carries the stigma of inferiority to the lens that you like. 50/1.7 is the budget lens, simply because it was the cheapest Konica option in this FL for a long time. The reasons why one would prefer the cheaper option are irrelevant, perhaps some people preferred Hexar's rendering/size/softness/whatever to regular Hexanon, does that make calling Hexars "budget" incomprehensible? I hope not. Summicron is a budget lens too, btw, if it makes my terminology easier to swallow.

ForenSeil · Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:36 pm

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The use of the term 'budget' is wrong when applied that way. Konica didn't make a budget 50mm. Budget should be applied to a lens specifically designed to be a cheaper lens for those on a budget, and Konica didn't make any of those. What they did sell was the Hexars, made by a third party and cheaper. I have them and they are good lenses, just not quite as good as the more expensive Hexanons.

An example of budget offerings would be the Fujica X series - 2.2/55, 1.9/50 and 1.6/50. The 2.2 was the budget offering, a 4 element lens or lesser quality to the 'regular' 1.9/50.

The Konica 1.8/40 is a budget lens, and you can see this in the performance, it is inferior to the 1.7/50 and 1.8/50.

Canon didn't really offer a budget normal either, there is the FD 2/50 but it's rare, I expect the 1.8/50 was cheap enough that they didn't need to offer a cheaper budget version, certainly it seems very very few FD 2/50s were sold.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Well, I have all those lenses, agree with Ian pretty much on all assessments. Very little to choose between 50/1.7 Hexanon and MD with a slight nod to Hexanon, generally prefer 45/2 Minolta to 40/1.8 Hexanon, but Hexanon is wider and smaller on the adapter, so not so clear cut, and 52/1.8 Hexanon is not as sharp as the later 50/1.7, still a cool lens though.

hoanpham · Expire: 2015-01-18

Interesting to see the chart of 40/1.8 on nex.
That confirms all i found in my copy.

As i have used other lenses in this class, wide open is also good to very good, but the 40/1.8 is 'poor'. At f2.8 still not good. Step down until f5.6 to have ok results.