ROKKOR 45 OR HEXANON 40?

[tb_a]

[iangreenhalgh1]

What was the point of that childish piece of trolling?

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

[tb_a]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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?

[tb_a]

[Minolfan]

I thought the topic was about Hexanon 40mm 1.8 and Rokkor 45mm 2.0.
Can we keep it there?

[WNG555]

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.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[blotafton]

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.

[tb_a]

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

[papasito]

Thanks for all guys.


I will stay with the rokkor 45/2.

[Rick1779]

[papasito]

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.

[Peter von Reichenberg]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[memetph]

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[tb_a]

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

[iangreenhalgh1]

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

[Sjak]

[stevemark]

[papasito]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[papasito]

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.