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

testing my lenses - part 112 - Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 12:20 am    Post subject: testing my lenses - part 112 - Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8 Reply with quote











PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You show this lens well, in fact I think you can make an Osawa 28mm look good Wink For me on a film camera, with two of these lenses, it just misses out in being "razor sharp" compared to some of it's Hexanon brothers.


PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a good lens but one of the least good Hexanons, all the 50-ish ones are better, the 1.7/50 is a lot better.


PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's a good lens but one of the least good Hexanons, all the 50-ish ones are better, the 1.7/50 is a lot better.


Totally agree with this. Main reason to own the lens is its small size, IMO ofc.


PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WolverineX, I'll summarize 2 quotes in your thread Wink

Phenix jc wrote:

(...DANTE STELLA...
2 capture sreens : )


#1

#2


Nesster wrote:
Konica lenses tested by Popular Photography in 1979

Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8
Konica UC Hexanon 28mm f/1.8
Konica Hexanon AR 100mm f/2.8



PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anyone is interested you can get all the details of this lens from the patent filed in 1978....I found it on the net in pdf format


PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit strange they called it the sharpest 35mm lens ever. I've had three of them and none could rival the 1.7/50 for sharpness.


PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
WolverineX, I'll summarize 2 quotes in your thread Wink



Great post! Thank you for those excellent, authoritative, references.

This is a remarkable lens with high utility and wonderful resolution. Even more so when you consider our modern employment of the lens, on digital cameras, uses only its "sweet" regions! I have had this lens under accumulation for a while. No regrets, but prices have been escalating.


PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
A bit strange they called it the sharpest 35mm lens ever. I've had three of them and none could rival the 1.7/50 for sharpness.


That could be explained by the stupidity of some magazines accepting a lens from a maker (to be tested) that has been selected to be their best copy...from then on it's parroting.


PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"parroting" - Excellent ! New vocabulary. The exact characterization of someone who I think. Thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, does anyone know if the hexanon 40mm is radioactive?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't recall it being called radioactive, it won't hurt you, well unless you eat it or do something non typical with it.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jazzman wrote:
Hi, does anyone know if the hexanon 40mm is radioactive?


Could you tell us why radioactive lenses worry you? Do you fly on planes?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very good lens in my experience.
I have had the exact opposite results from some others here vis-a-vis the 1.7/50
I have owned both, but the 1.8/40 was every bit as good or better than the 1.7/50 so I sold it.
Here is a sample from the 1.8/40
OH



PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...just bought a 40/1.8 in good condition for £15 at a local antique shop. Tested this weekend on my Canon M3 (APS-C 1.6) and it's too soft! ...can't get any sharp subject @1.8 or @2.8. Do I need a tripod! Smile

The only good thing; it's light and very compact with the AR adapter. The focus ring is bit stiff in comparison to my other manual lenses; so I don't know if it needs a CLA (maybe not worth it) or it's normal for this model.

So I don't know if it's a due to a semi-stiff focus ring, the lens is too light or a bad lens! Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice lens
If I don't remember it bad, some warm rendering

Hoy do you compare this lens (almost 42 mm ones) With the rokkor x 45/2?
Nice to read the members opinión.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
WolverineX, I'll summarize 2 quotes in your thread Wink



Well, you cut quickly to the core issue. Much credit to you for that.

This is one of the very first MF lenses I acquired after getting into the MF lens craze. I had no clue what I was doing more than ten years ago. I though I could adapt the lens to be used on any camera. Rolling Eyes

Of course I learned differently eventually, but I still acquired several more of these for various reasons, halting my buying four or five years ago. Still, I have continued to follow this lens and can tell you:

This is a very popular lens and it has excellent buyer support. You don't find people turning up their noses on this one. This lens also receives, generally speaking, rave reviews . . . which probably accounts for the buyer support.

All in all this is a pretty neat and special lens, and with the advent of mirrorless cameras it has really come into its own.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cedricb wrote:
...just bought a 40/1.8 in good condition for £15 at a local antique shop. Tested this weekend on my Canon M3 (APS-C 1.6) and it's too soft! ...can't get any sharp subject @1.8 or @2.8. Do I need a tripod! Smile

The only good thing; it's light and very compact with the AR adapter. The focus ring is bit stiff in comparison to my other manual lenses; so I don't know if it needs a CLA (maybe not worth it) or it's normal for this model.

So I don't know if it's a due to a semi-stiff focus ring, the lens is too light or a bad lens! Rolling Eyes


H'mm well on a film camera it's very good, maybe a bit soft wide open like many lenses.....but stopped down and IMO it's just slightly less sharp compared to say Hexanon 50mm f1.7 but you would have to pixel peep to see the difference which wouldn't show in say an A4 print (with no crops).


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had an outing yesterday with some friends, and while I shot mostly film (Fomapan 100) I did snap this quick piccie at the end of the day.
Hexanon 1.8/40 on X-E1
Cheers
OH


#1


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
I had an outing yesterday with some friends, and while I shot mostly film (Fomapan 100) I did snap this quick piccie at the end of the day.
Hexanon 1.8/40 on X-E1
Cheers
OH


I am curious because you mentioned shooting film on a couple of threads,
what camera are you using?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uddhava wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I had an outing yesterday with some friends, and while I shot mostly film (Fomapan 100) I did snap this quick piccie at the end of the day.
Hexanon 1.8/40 on X-E1
Cheers
OH


I am curious because you mentioned shooting film on a couple of threads,
what camera are you using?


Sigh ..... thought you'd never ask Smile
Pentax 67 - although you can see from my avatar that I also Use a Bronica ETRs - and so far - mostly Fomapan 100, although I had some wonderful images with some out of date Agfa Variopan XL.
Since this is the lenses forum, my most commonly used lenses thus far have been 45mm, 150mm and 300mm - in that order.
Did I mention how heavy these are Smile
OH