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

ROKKOR 45 OR HEXANON 40?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all guys.


I will stay with the rokkor 45/2.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink

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


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That picture shows exactly why I like the Minolta 2/45 - the smoothness of the rendering and the bright, saturated colours.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink

I think they know what they are doing, but i may be wrong, of course.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Many of the most iconic images of Ansel Adams were taken with a Hasselblad, certainly the most sophisticated and capable SLR of its time, e. g. for "The Dome".

Obviously - as i found with a quick internet search - he was using many of the very best large format lenses of the time:

"I know he used the 10" Wide Field Ektar, Turner Reich 12-1/4" triple convertible and 12" Dagor for some of his more famous photographs."
"I also seem to recall a letter to Weston suggesting a Protar, which he suggested offered the most "life-like" image, although the Dagor offered more enlargement potential - so he probably fooled around with the Protar also."
"Ansel used an 18" Zeiss Apo-Tessar on his 8x10. He also used an 18" on the 4x5 (Frozen Lake and Cliffs, Sierra Nevada) which may have been the aforementioned lens. "

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's long past the time when you should have shut up because you're completely off-topic and just being pedantic and annoying.

We can all throw up quotes to support our points, but it doesn't mean we have the definitive answer, and besides, it's got nothing to do with the Rokkor or Hexanon under discussion.

Quote:

In 1932, Horace W. Lee patented (British patent 376,044) the Cooke Series XV Triple Convertible, which provided three focal lengths, with each half comprising two cemented doublets. The components gave excellent performance throughout the various focal length combinations.

Ansel Adams, famous American landscape photographer, shot many of his most famous images using this lens, as documented in his book "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs." He appeared on BBC-TV stating that he used a convertible lens for many of his photos, then said, almost as a throw-away line, "A Cooke of course."This lens was made between 1935 through about 1962. The Series XV lens is difficult to find on the used market today, but is still sought-after by 8x10 inch format photographers due to it exemplary performance.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's long past the time when you should have shut up because you're completely off-topic and just being pedantic and annoying.
And this type of remarks clearly takes the forum to a higher level?

I noticed in quite some more threads that whenever there is a perceived disagreement with something you said, you often react with disproportionate language. I am sure that in real life, e.g. in a pub, in a similar difference in point of view, you would react differently. The safety of your keyboard is no excuse for insults.

You will need to understand and accept, that on an open internet forum, not everyone will agree with you all the time.

It's a shame that you sometimes react like this, because on other matters, you often have a lot of good input.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


What is this theory ? Most great composers, painters and photographers were very much interested, if not obsessed, by the technical things. There is no contradiction between technique and art .


PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the Rokkor 45/2. Compact, lightweight, well-made and good IQ. Not sure why people even discuss "rendering" and "saturated colors" in the age of digital photography. If you shoot in RAW (as well you should), "rendering" and colors will be what you decide them to be in post-processing Smile

Some of my shots w/Rokkor 45/2

Spring colors by Artem, on Flickr

Nightly comforts by Artem, on Flickr

夕顔 by Artem, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t think that you can recover in postprocessing something that the lens did not catch .
It does not make sense even to try. Just buy the lens you like.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you don't mind the color accuracy or fidelity, you don't need a good lens.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
If you don't mind the color accuracy or fidelity, you don't need a good lens.


Cannot more than agree to that! Like 1 small Like 1 small Like 1 small