View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Rick1779 wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up. |
where did you find informations on the exact focal lenght? |
Sorry, I can't remember! |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
That was the worst attempt at admitting you were wrong I can remember reading!
You really need to work on that skill because you are wrong often.
|
_________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
What was the point of that childish piece of trolling?
I was being honest - I simply can't remember where I read that info. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
What was the point of that childish piece of trolling?
I was being honest - I simply can't remember where I read that info. |
I didn't start this game. You started to attack me whenever you can and tell even others that I am stating pure nonsense. That was my very simple answer. See it as echo.
I am just a simple person. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm a simple person too and if someone spouts nonsense then refuses to be corrected then I will point it out as it is for the benefit of everyone not to have nonsense spread about this board. Here we deal in facts.
Want to avoid being called out on your nonsense? Simple, stop writing nonsense!
Surely even a simple person can grasp that? _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I'm a simple person too and if someone spouts nonsense then refuses to be corrected then I will point it out as it is for the benefit of everyone not to have nonsense spread about this board. Here we deal in facts.
Want to avoid being called out on your nonsense? Simple, stop writing nonsense!
Surely even a simple person can grasp that? |
Well, I am grasping more than you would believe. However, it's your choice anyway.
EOD from my side. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3437 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
I thought the topic was about Hexanon 40mm 1.8 and Rokkor 45mm 2.0.
Can we keep it there?
Last edited by Minolfan on Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
MD Rokkor-X 45mm f/2 gets my vote. Stopped down, it's very sharp and detailed. Wide open, there is purple fringing. Color is signature Minolta MD. I think it's put together a bit better than the 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon AR.
I don't have the 40mm but have the 50mm f/1.8 that's based on the same body. Images are great, bokeh is better than the Minolta, but the body felt quite flimsy. These weren't made in-house, but by Tokina.
But if an adapter must be used, I'd forget both of these. If it's a Konica, then go for the 50mm f/1.7. Better lens in every way.
For Minolta, a better buy and lens would be the late MD 50mm f/1.7 or f/2. Crazy sharp, and can be found for under $10 USD. _________________ "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
Last edited by WNG555 on Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
WNG555 wrote: |
MD Rokkor-X 45mm f/2 gets my vote. Stopped down, it's very sharp and detailed. Wide open, there is purple fringing. Color is signature Minolta MD. I think it's put together a bit better than the 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon AR.
I don't have the 40mm but have the 50mm f/1.8 that's based on the same body. Images are great, bokeh is better than the Minolta, but the body felt quite flimsy. These weren't made in-house, but by Tokina.
But it an adapter must be used, I'd forget both of these. If it's a Konica, then go for the 50mm f/1.7. Better lens in every way.
For Minolta, a better buy and lens would be the late MD 50mm f/1.7 or f/2. Crazy sharp, and can be found for under $10 USD. |
+1, all good points and I agree with all of them, having owed both lenses myself for years. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1553 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
I'm tempted to do a side by side comparison now! As far as wide open testing goes, the minolta has smoother double gauss type bokeh, the hexanon has more of a busy character. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
You can see some comparison shots of the 45mm/f2 lens with some other 50mm lenses from Minolta here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-rokkor-50mm-f1-4-t71150,highlight,+minolta++50,start,16.html _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Thanks for all guys.
I will stay with the rokkor 45/2. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013 Posts: 1207 Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Rick1779 wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up. |
where did you find informations on the exact focal lenght? |
Sorry, I can't remember! |
No problem at all, was just curious about it
Now I can troll some pentaxians with the 43 limited _________________ TELLTALE
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
I read the same about the FL of the two lenses. Only a bit different, the FL should be 42 or 43 mm for both. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Peter von Reichenberg
Joined: 30 Jan 2018 Posts: 1 Location: Prague, CZ
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Peter von Reichenberg wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up. |
No, not true - I have them both. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have them both too, what's not true?
Lenses are rarely the exact focal length they are supposed to be, rather, there is a spread. For instance, you might have a lens design that is supposed to be 43.2mm, but manufacturing tolerances mean that the lenses you make to that design come out anywhere between 41 and 46mm.
For general photography, this is not an issue, but when you get into high precision work, such as process photography for printing, especially when producing CMYK separations for colour printing, it is an issue, so you will find that most process lenses have the exact focal length scribed onto them, usually on the back. An example of this is the 540mm Wollensak Apochromatic Raptar I have, it has 543.1mm written on the rear of the barrel with an electropencil. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Peter von Reichenberg wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up. |
No, not true - I have them both. |
+1
I made the comparison too . The Haxanon is clearly wider. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Lenses are rarely the exact focal length they are supposed to be, rather, there is a spread. For instance, you might have a lens design that is supposed to be 43.2mm, but manufacturing tolerances mean that the lenses you make to that design come out anywhere between 41 and 46mm. |
Not true as well
There were times - usually ending in the early 1960s - when specific lens designs were re-calculated according to each batch of glass used. This may have caused slight derivations of the effective focal lengths, but they were never as distinct as you claim them to be.
Of course the Hexanon AR 1.8/40mm is wider than the Minolta MD 2/45mm. I have them both as well. And the Hexanon - due to its unconventional construction - results in a better overall performance, at least on 24MP FF.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I much prefer the Minolta 2/45, but I've never been anally retentive enough to care too much about the technical minutiae, I just take pictures and trust my eyes as to what is good enough or not. The Minolta has a very nice rendering and bright saturated colours, I've made some very nice images with it, two of which I've actually sold prints of, so to me, it's a fine lens and performs more than adequately.
I worked out a long time ago that there are some people who know a lot about technical crap to do with photography but take bloody awful photographs from an aesthetic, artistic point of view. I'm sure if those people spent more time taking pictures with an intent to create something aesthetically pleasing or with artistic merit then they would become far better photographers; spending lots of time analysing the technical minutiae of lenses is not going to do a damn thing to improve one's photography skills so it is of marginal interest to me. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
I don't have any Konica lenses at all but I have the Minolta MD 45mm/F2 and like it very much.
Example picture at F2:
Here's my introduction of this lens if you want so see some more: http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-rokkor-45mm-f2-t73268.html _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That picture shows exactly why I like the Minolta 2/45 - the smoothness of the rendering and the bright, saturated colours. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sjak
Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sjak wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Well, I much prefer the Minolta 2/45, but I've never been anally retentive enough to care too much about the technical minutiae, I just take pictures and trust my eyes as to what is good enough or not. The Minolta has a very nice rendering and bright saturated colours, I've made some very nice images with it, two of which I've actually sold prints of, so to me, it's a fine lens and performs more than adequately.
I worked out a long time ago that there are some people who know a lot about technical crap to do with photography but take bloody awful photographs from an aesthetic, artistic point of view. I'm sure if those people spent more time taking pictures with an intent to create something aesthetically pleasing or with artistic merit then they would become far better photographers; spending lots of time analysing the technical minutiae of lenses is not going to do a damn thing to improve one's photography skills so it is of marginal interest to me. |
I understand your point of view here.
Then again, without people with the technical knowledge, who would be able to design the lenses we love so much? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I worked out a long time ago that there are some people who know a lot about technical crap to do with photography but take bloody awful photographs from an aesthetic, artistic point of view. |
Of course there are such people.
BUT: Most of the most outstanding photographers were/are using the very best equipment available at their time.
Just think of
* Ansel Adams
* Henri Cartier-Bresson
* Sebastiao Salgado
* Richard Avedon
... and many many others
I think they know what they are doing, but i may be wrong, of course.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
WNG555 wrote: |
........... If it's a Konica, then go for the 50mm f/1.7. Better lens in every way.
For Minolta, a better buy and lens would be the late MD 50mm f/1.7 or f/2. Crazy sharp, and can be found for under $10 USD. |
The comparision should be an excellent way to know cons and pros of each fo those very good lenses.
It seems a thing to do. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes, you're wrong, they used equipment that was capable of doing what they wanted and didn't care if there was technically better available.
Ansel Adams for example used the same Cooke Convertible for over 40 years and no doubt, in that time frame, technically 'better', more advanced designs came along. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Some did it, some not
Obviously, we are not one of them.
Some of us like to play with the lenses, and into that game, one of the things to know is which are the best.
Adams, Salgao, C-B, had their own game. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|