Manual Focus Lenses Forum

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.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I guess what we're seeing with the 1.8/40 is the effect on corrections when small size is a design criteria.

I have owned four pancakes - Hexanon 1.8/40, Minolta 2/45, Pentacon 2.4/50, Yashica ML 2/50. All were good lenses but in the case of the first two, they were less good than the 50mm lenses by the same maker. The Pentacon I think is a 4 element design, it's a good sharp lens, hard to tell apart shots with it from the 1.8/50 Pentacon unless they were shot wide open. The ML was surprisingly good, I have never owned an ML 1.7/50 to compare, but the 2/50 was very sharp.

The two pancakes that are widely regarded as excellent are the 2.8/45 Nikkor and 2.8/45 Contax Tessar, both are 4 element designs. There is also the Industar-50 that is tiny and lots of examples of fixed lens cameras with compact lenses with the Tessar formula. So it seems to me that if you want a compact pancake size lens, a Tessar type is better than a 6 element planar/ultron type that has been 'compressed' to fit like with the Konica and Minolta pancakes.

Nikonshooter · Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:55 am

I might have to let my 135mm 3.2 go since I can't use it on a Nikon body. Too bad because it sounds like a great lens. Sad

ForenSeil · Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:41 am

Quick resolution test on an testchart

Konica Hexanon 52 F1.8
Wide open - F5.6

Konica Hexanon 50 F1.7
Wide open - F5.6

Minolta MD 50/2 + UV Filter (sorry, forgot to remove it, it has slight impact on the contrast!)
Wide open - F5.6

Minolta MD 50/1.4
Wide open - F2 - F5.6

Short comparision: All are good! All have their pros and their cons - there is no clear winner.

Konica 50/1.7 is slightly better than the 52/1.8 except wide open.
Both Konicas show strong glow and slight CAs at wide apertures but improve drastically above ~F2.8
Interesting: Konica 50/1.7 becomes the best of all 4 lenses when stopped down to F5.6 while it's the optically worst wide open.
Builds of both lenses are very good but heavy.

Minolta MD 50/2 has best CA control, glow control and much clarity than both Konicas at wide apertures. It also produces the imho best colors on wide apertures. But it's build and haptics are the worst of all 4 lenses (not bad though - still very much better than modern Canon EF 50/1.8 etc.).

Minolta MD 50/1.4 is the most versatile lens due the highest speed, usable wide open- and good overall performance, nice metal build and smooth haptics. Only drawback is the price, which is the highest by far.

PS: The NEX-C3 with this method is not able to fully outresolve the lenses due bayer array, JPEG-compression, shutter vibration - so to comparing lenses at higher levels than 80 lines per mm will is very hard and more guessing than seeing. Also in my setup the distance between target and lens was only rough set to around 2m+-20cm (should be ~2,10m for 50mm lenses on my testchart because the chart is made for 1:40 magnification) - so lines per mm values of the testchart wouldn't be 100% reliable anyway.
PPS: I also tested the modern Sony SEL50F18 in the same comparision - it's better than all 4 lenses at all apertures (already real top peformance in center wide open) with a little exception - @F5.6 it's almost impossible to find evaluable differences between the Konica 50/1.8 due the sensor of the NEX gets outresolved too much.
PPPS: F*ck I wish I had also tried my old Helios 44-2 in the same comparision to compare lines per mm values with references

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

ForenSeil · Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:08 am

Wow! Fantastic pics Ian!

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Cheers, all wide open, this is why I say the Konica 3.2/135 is a great lens, and a cheap one too, I think it's the best of the Konica 135mms and I compared all 4 or 5 I owned at one time when I was bored. Smile

Thanks for the 4-way test results BTW, it's nice when test results backup what I've seen in the real world.

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

@ Fermy
I’m sorry to say that in your replies, you misquote and make assumptions that are entirely unfounded:

FYI, I find your use of the term “budget option” incomprehensible because I find it absolutely meaningless to bring price into the equation when comparing the technical merits of a 50/1.7 lens in relation faster 50s – a point you insist on in this particular case – when that lens’ lower price is due entirely to the fact that it’s a lens of a different TYPE – a type that is simply cheaper to make by definition, for reasons I already mentioned. And no, “the reasons why one would prefer the cheaper option” are NOT irrelevant. There are perfectly rational grounds of technical preference for choosing a slower lens over a faster one. The price difference in this case is incidental and secondary. Each of the Hexars, in contrast to the 50/1.7 were MADE to be a cheaper version of an already existing lens, and therein lies the difference between them and the 50/1.7. It makes sense to compare the Hexars to their Hexanon equivalents in FL and speed. To compare the Hexanon 50/1.7 to the Hexanon 50/1.4, or the Canon FD 50/1.4 for that matter, and intimate that the differences between them are due to costs is simply meaningless.

Thus your suggestion that my incomprehension might be based on some imaginary “stigma” lodged in my eyes, while very amusing, is just as much off the mark. I regret to disappoint you, but I have no particular attachment to the Hexanon 50/1.7. As I already mentioned, my main interest is ambient-light portraiture and I tend to favor fast lenses. Razor sharpness is not an important factor to me and my favorite Hexanon standard lens is the 57/1.4. I just happen to know the 50/1.7, dozens of which have been through my hands and those of several acquaintances over the years. I know it to be an outstanding lens, precisely for its sharpness. Kindly note that I do not (and DID not) say or imply “the sharpest made by anyone ever” or anything of the sort. It seems to me all your references to this formulation were taken out of context and misquoted.

You also assume that I am comparing the 50/1.7 to “5 OK lenses and conclude that it's among the best in the field of hundreds”. I duly take note that you “strongly object to such thinking”. Except that it’s not my thinking. One would assume that it goes without saying, but let me clarify it nonetheless: I understand the test I uploaded as a comparison of the Hexanon 50.17 to the other lenses in the same test and, by extension, to others similar. Nothing else. By "others similar", I do not mean standard FL primes, which you seem to view as the defining category in this discussion, but to other 50mm standards of similar aperture (1.7 to 2.0 in the event). There is a reason why, in the same test, Popular Photography tested 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7 lenses in different categories (and that reason has nothing to do with “budget options”). As such, it seems to me that my words about the Hexanon 50/1.7 being basically as good as anything available at the time are perfectly justified.

I understand that as a photographer, one may have a preference for results obtained using a hypothetical 50/1.2 over an equally hypothetical 50/1.7. Such is my case, but I would never state that the 1.2 is a higher quality lens than the 1.7 by using as an argument that the latter was a “budget option”. I don’t think this is a neutral expression referring solely to an item’s price. Contrary to your earlier suggestion, in general parlance – and most certainly in the context of photographic equipment – such a term IS associated with lower quality.

I find it entirely pointless to compare the relative “quality” of a 50/1.2 to that of a 50/1.7. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. There are exceptions, but all things being equal, a 50/1.7 lens is generally expected to be somewhat sharper than a 50/1.4, not to mention a 50/1.2. If the myriad of 50/1.4s and 1.2s in your possession are all much sharper than your 50/1.7, it’s one more reason to suspect your 50/1.7 might be a bad sample. My modest suggestion would be that there are better exemplars in circulation. That’s really the only thing I’ve been driving at here as far as the 50/1.7 is concerned.

As an aside, two things seem worthwhile to keep in mind IMO:

Lenses made in the mid-1970s were not made for the Sony NEX or other cameras of this type. To assess such lenses’ merits based on the image they produce on an APS-C sensor and conclude, as many do, that the praise some of them have elicited for 3 decades is nonsense is a bit hasty.

The use of baffles on some Hexanon lenses used with a 4/3 sensor greatly improves image quality BTW. My French friend Christophe has a site called Street Photo & Cie, where you can read more about it: http://www.street-photo.fr/fr/materiel/27/35 Use Google translate if your French has gotten rusty. The text was written before the emergence of mirrorless cameras, so it concerns modified Hexanons mounted on the initial 4/3 mount. The principles are identical for APS-C cameras, even if the diameter of the internal baffle opening would have to be larger. By how much is a matter of experimentation (or calculation, if you’re so inclined). The site has before and after pics, notably involving the Hexanon 40/1.8.

And with that, I’ve probably said all I care to say in this thread.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Just to put my money where my mouth is, what I meant by “misquote” is this:

You took the following statement:
“Image quality of the Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8 is outstanding – some photography magazines praised it as one of the sharpest lenses ever built by any manufacturer for 35 mm cameras. Whether or not this is true is left open […].”

And you did this with it:
“However, some people (notably buhla) throw words like "sharpest ever built by anyone" regarding budget lenses like Hexanon 40/1.8 and 50/1.7 and this is just fanboy speak.”

Not a very accurate report, is it?

I wasn’t after getting into an argument here, but merely trying to point out that:
A) What you claimed was said is not really what was said, and
B) Reports about the two Hexanons’ sharpness are not “fanboy speak” or “BS”, but there is much evidence to back them up.

As for the rest, I will indeed leave it at that.