View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 12:55 am Post subject: 57-58/1,4 mm lens- Minolta or Konica? |
|
|
papasito wrote:
I have buy again the 57/1,4 hexanon lens.
It´s the chrome focus ring one. With intermerdiate cliks between apertures and last coated (it,s seems to be the intermediate version).
I saw a lot of pics taken with the Minolta MC II 58/1,4 lens and I like them very much.
Which of both to choose? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Buy both, then sell one if you need to. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:11 am Post subject: Re: 57-58/1,4 mm lens- Minolta or Konica? |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
I have buy again the 57/1,4 hexanon lens.
It´s the chrome focus ring one. With intermerdiate cliks between apertures and last coated (it,s seems to be the intermediate version).
I saw a lot of pics taken with the Minolta MC II 58/1,4 lens and I like them very much.
Which of both to choose? |
Both are good.
Tom
Hexanon 57/1.4
#1
Minolta 58/1.4
#1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Papasito, I agree with Calvin and Tom, unless you wish to be really spartan and leave only one survivor.
I have the Hexanon under question and a younger version of Minolta, the 1.4/50 one, which both give a close IQ. From 5m to infinity you'll hardly tell which one is which. They differ more in bokeh and in some extent in colour saturation (different accents). I use both pretty randomly, finding in this particular moment that f1.8 Planars are more versatile. So, it's more a question of joy of choice rather than of IQ championship. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018 Posts: 632 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alun Thomas wrote:
With the Minolta there are apparently two slightly differening versions, the Auto-Rokkor and the MC version. The Auto-Rokkor has 2 variants, one with 6 aperture blades and a 52mm filter ring, and an earlier one with 8 blades and the standard 55mm filter. The later MC version is supposed to be the better version to get. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr.Bittacy
Joined: 16 Jun 2019 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr.Bittacy wrote:
I have owned a Konica 57 1.4 and the later hill and valley Minolta 58 1.4. In short the 57 has an exciting personality with a lot of character and the 58 was very “blah” to me. Maybe it’s because the 58 1.2 Minolta is so good as is the 55 1.7 but the 1.4 just did not seem to really have any character or strong points, I would much rather shoot the 55 1.7. My lens takes are very subjective though, I only keep lenses that have something special that makes me want to shoot them and non of the images I got with the 1.4 had that special something, it just seemed boring. It may be down to sample variation or just to taste. All you can do is shoot as many lenses as you can and keep the ones that feel special to you. For anyone who is considering these lenses I would recommend trying the canon FL 55 1.2 which is a very good lens and surprisingly affordable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
The Minolta is a lens that produces lovely rendering and is especially suitable as a portrait lens on APSc. From f2 it is sharp without losing the rendering that is so appropriate to ladies and children.
The Hexanon is sharper at widest aperture in my experience, and its colour render seems richer.
This isn't always what is required, but it is probably more versatile than the Minolta in these circumstances.
I find the Minolta to be softer in its colour palette at wider apertures, and this is a plus when you want that effect.
I have both lenses and am glad I don't have to choose between them.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2931 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
These are both still ridiculously cheap IMHO. Especially with Canikon going mirrorless. So much so that I picked up a half dozen copies of each just as speculation. They render differently. I would give minolta a narrow sharpness edge wide open, but smoother bokeh to the Konica. I have not done any side by sides though. _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Mr.Bittacy wrote: |
I have owned a Konica 57 1.4 and the later hill and valley Minolta 58 1.4. In short the 57 has an exciting personality with a lot of character and the 58 was very “blah” to me. Maybe it’s because the 58 1.2 Minolta is so good as is the 55 1.7 but the 1.4 just did not seem to really have any character or strong points, I would much rather shoot the 55 1.7. My lens takes are very subjective though, I only keep lenses that have something special that makes me want to shoot them and non of the images I got with the 1.4 had that special something, it just seemed boring. It may be down to sample variation or just to taste. All you can do is shoot as many lenses as you can and keep the ones that feel special to you. For anyone who is considering these lenses I would recommend trying the canon FL 55 1.2 which is a very good lens and surprisingly affordable. |
I had the fd 55/1,2 ssc. I sold it when had the nFD 50/1,4.
I sold it and returned to konica 50/1,7. And.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
The Minolta is a lens that produces lovely rendering and is especially suitable as a portrait lens on APSc. From f2 it is sharp without losing the rendering that is so appropriate to ladies and children.
The Hexanon is sharper at widest aperture in my experience, and its colour render seems richer.
This isn't always what is required, but it is probably more versatile than the Minolta in these circumstances.
I find the Minolta to be softer in its colour palette at wider apertures, and this is a plus when you want that effect.
I have both lenses and am glad I don't have to choose between them.
Tom |
Thank you, Tom. Very much |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Thanks guys.
I will stay with my Konica in this range (57_58 mm).
I have two new lenses. MC Apo Telezenitar 135/2,8 and Nikkor Ais 28/2,8.
Two nice lenses, I hope so. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
Thanks guys.
I will stay with my Konica in this range (57_58 mm).
I have two new lenses. MC Apo Telezenitar 135/2,8 and Nikkor Ais 28/2,8.
Two nice lenses, I hope so. |
Just to round this out a little, here are two images shot moments apart of the same subject, same light, same exposure and from a fixed tripod.
Both at f1.4
First is the Hexanon, second the Minolta.
Hexanon colour is a little richer and the Minolta less so.
Other than that there is little between them
Tom
#1
#2
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Thanks guys.
I will stay with my Konica in this range (57_58 mm).
I have two new lenses. MC Apo Telezenitar 135/2,8 and Nikkor Ais 28/2,8.
Two nice lenses, I hope so. |
Just to round this out a little, here are two images shot moments apart of the same subject, same light, same exposure and from a fixed tripod.
Both at f1.4
First is the Hexanon, second the Minolta.
Hexanon colour is a little richer and the Minolta less so.
Other than that there is little between them
Tom
#1
#2
|
Thank you Tom
Very clare your point
Useful |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 441
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
I have both. On paper the Konica is better. Closer minimum focus distance to the Minolta. Half stops throughout the range. Minolta goes from f/1.4 to f/2. However, I have been unable to part with the Minolta. The bokeh is always smooth from the Minolta and there is just something about the rendering. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
I have read all the post and cos that I purchased the minolta MCII 58/1,4.
I'm waiting for it now. In June 4th will arrive.
Will have the two. Konica 57/1 4 and Rokkor MC 58/1 4.
So can see the rendering of both by miself |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6009 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
I have read all the post and cos that I purchased the minolta MCII 58/1,4.
I'm waiting for it now. In June 4th will arrive.
Will have the two. Konica 57/1 4 and Rokkor MC 58/1 4.
So can see the rendering of both by miself |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Apart from some bokeh tests, i've never carefully compared these lenses. I don't expect many differences, but i will have a closer look at them tomorrow. Complementary to Oldhands images, i will go for the infinity range.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Apart from some bokeh tests, i've never carefully compared these lenses. I don't expect many differences, but i will have a closer look at them tomorrow. Complementary to Oldhands images, i will go for the infinity range.
S |
My expectation is the Minolta may has a bit longer FL (near 61 mm un FF)?
And the rendering will not be far than the post of OH shows, for sure. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
... i will have a closer look at them tomorrow. ... |
Weather was/is terrible today here in central Switzerland, lots of wind an rain - which means no testing today. Sorry
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
... i will have a closer look at them tomorrow. ... |
Weather was/is terrible today here in central Switzerland, lots of wind an rain - which means no testing today. Sorry
S |
Well, I have now both lenses.
The Rokkor - PF is a bit longer FL. As In Artaphot is written. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 441
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
So what is your impression? Konica or Minolta? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Here we are:
100 % crops from the center (upper row) and the extreme corners (lower rows) of the 24MP JPGs from A7II:
Click twice on the image to see it in its original size!
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2927 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
You could also look for a Tomioka made 55/1.4. I have the Revuenon version and it held up really good against other fast lenses and it's a joy to use really. Here is a test i did a while back:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?p=1524033#1524033 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
cbass wrote: |
So what is your impression? Konica or Minolta? |
Minolta is a bit sharper to my eyes.
Konica has more contrast.
Perhaps with Minolta sharpness and +1 or +2 contrast in camera should be an interesant combo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Here we are:
100 % crops from the center (upper row) and the extreme corners (lower rows) of the 24MP JPGs from A7II:
Stephan |
Thank you Stephan.
Very ilustrative.
I see the different rendering at f/5,6 of both lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|