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: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:32 pm    Post subject: ROKKOR 45 OR HEXANON 40? Reply with quote

Hello.


My doubt is which of the two lenses to use.

I have Sony 5 N and 7.

i have the rokkor, but not the hexanon.

What do you think about?

The rokkor 2/45?

The hexanon 1,8/40?


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer the Rokkor, better colours, nicer bokeh.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The rokkor 45mm 2.0 ofcourse!
You have the lens, why bother about another lens?

To be honest, I have both, not extensvely tested on my Nex3 yet.
But I like that Hexanon very much.
Small good lens and just a bit shorter and faster then the Rokkor.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did choose the (smaller) rokkor and sold the (even smaller) hexanon


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank, very much.

I had the hexanon log time ago. I remember it like a very good lens. I could not find any difference (in film, of course) with the hexanon 50/1,7 (the old, with cold colors, the premium version).

I use like a normal lens a 58 mm one. Don't use very wide view lenses, so the 40/45 mm range is OK to me.

Till now, it seems that the rokkor win.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
They are the same focal length (43.2mm), just Konica rounded down and Minolta rounded up.

Shocked That's funny! I'll have to compare them directly, didn't have seen that.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never used the Hexanon, but the Rokkor 45/2 is simply fantastic for it's size and value. I have probably 8-9 ~50mm MF lenses, and the Rokkor 45 is one of my favorites to use with the Sony A7x bodies.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rokkor 45/2....
Are we talking the M mount or MD pancake? Edit: Nevermind, the M mount is 40mm.
There is also the LTM Rokkor 45/2.8 which I'm tempted to get http://www.digifan.cn/photo/2010113145121.jpg
SMC Pentax 40/2.8 pancake
Contax Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8 pancake
Contax G 45/2 is one of my favorites, I transplanted mine into a Rokkor MC 55/1.7 body, and changed the mount to M.


Last edited by Lightshow on Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I only have the 45/2.0 MD Rokkor and I like it. It's not special in any way, not outstanding in sharpness and contrast or any other aspect but it's good enough and perfectly usable for most purposes even wide open which is the thing that really matters. What I don't like about it is the aperture with just 5 straight blades. As soon as you stop down even just one click you get quite ugly and distracting pentagons in the bokeh.

If you're considering the Konica because of the small size, I'd say don't bother. With the adapter neither of them is a pancake anymore.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the Rokkor 45 is one the best budget lens around


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You inspired me to walk around a bit today with the 45mm Rokkor. Obviously these are edited, but you get the idea of what's possible out of the lens. These are all wide-open at f/2.


Leaves by Brandon Harris, on Flickr

Hanging Angels by Brandon Harris, on Flickr

Flowers by Brandon Harris, on Flickr

Cardinal Tree by Brandon Harris, on Flickr

Tiny Americana by Brandon Harris, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rokk 2/45 for me also,

I have 3 copies no sample variance all good


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:42 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!


Laughing

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.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What was the point of that childish piece of trolling?

I was being honest - I simply can't remember where I read that info.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Last edited by WNG555 on Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:41 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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