Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Hexanon 50mm f1.4 or f1.7?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Prefferred Hexanon 50mm version?
f1.4
53%
 53%  [ 15 ]
f1.7
39%
 39%  [ 11 ]
f1.8
7%
 7%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 28



PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Added a poll to the thread - the options are limited to the three common 50mms from hexanon.


aspen wrote:
ramcewan wrote:

I have the 1.8/40 and i like it although i find some shots soft.

I believed that I would go through life never ever hearing a sentence like this Shocked


not sure how to take this so I will explain that to me imho sharpness is not the end all be all of the lens it is more about character, color, and feel often times. I kinda subscribe to the ken rockwell sharpness ( http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm ) belief about people taking pictures of brick walls to show how sharp their lens is instead of taking pictures of interesting things. I am pretty much a newb but I have shots of bluebirds taken with new hightech lenses that have amazing sharp contrast untouched to the point where it is different from what my eyes saw, while this is not always bad it does become unnatural, over the long haul I find I prefer a shot that has more resemblance to what my eyes saw.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why don't you just take all 3 lenses? They do have differences.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No point in a poll unless you own or have used all 3, I've only got the 50/1.4 so can't really vote lol


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
really nice photos.. I like the rendering of this FD 1.4/50!


But I'm you could do the same with a 1.4/57 Hexanon too and I still think the 50mm Hexanons are even a bit sharper.


Thanks! Just wanted to get the word out that FD50/1.4 is one of really great lenses. I would expect f1.4 Hexanons to be similar in performance. And the other point is that 1.4 lenses usually are a bit of higher quality than 1.7/1.8 in addition to being faster. For example, FD 1.4 has 8 bladed aperture, while FD 1.8 is only 5 bladed.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really don't agree that the FD 1.4 is on a higher level than the Konica 1.7/50, I also strongly disagree that faster lenses are higher quality, this can easily be disproved.

I didn't keep any of the FD lenses I've owned, I found them pretty average, on the same level as the Kiron and Tokina lenses I've owned.

If the OP would like me to, I will take my Hexanons 1.4/50, 1.7/50 and 1.8/50 and do a side-by-side comparison shoot.

However, I would suggest that you would be very happy with any of the three and differences are not very large at all.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really don't agree that the FD 1.4 is on a higher level than the Konica 1.7/50, I also strongly disagree that faster lenses are higher quality, this can easily be disproved.


Easily disproved? Interesting. How?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tervueren wrote:
No point in a poll unless you own or have used all 3, I've only got the 50/1.4 so can't really vote lol


Indeed...I only have the hexanon F1.7 and F1.8 and anyway rarely use them wide open, so it would be a stop down comparison and just to add I can't see the difference in these two lenses........... but then I haven't bothered to test them with large crops.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By comparing fast lenses to slower counterparts. The Hexanon 1.4/50 isn't better than the 1.8 or 1.7 versions, the Miranda 1.4/50, despite having 8 elements, isn't better then the 6-element Miranda 1.8 and 1.9/50, the Pancolar 1.8/50 isn't sharper than the Tessar 2.8/50, there are countless examples.

Maybe with Canon the faster ones are better, Canon are a mass market maker and their standard lenses are usually competent but uninspiring so it makes sense that their faster lenses, being niche items of a much higher price level would be better than their mass market items.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, here are some unprocessed wide open shots I just took with the Hexanon 1.8/50 in poor light. No way can the Canon FD 1.8/50 match this level of performance, as Forenseil would say, they play in different leagues. As they are around the same price on ebay, no sense in picking the FD 1.8/50 over the the Hexanon:


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
By comparing fast lenses to slower counterparts. The Hexanon 1.4/50 isn't better than the 1.8 or 1.7 versions, the Miranda 1.4/50, despite having 8 elements, isn't better then the 6-element Miranda 1.8 and 1.9/50, the Pancolar 1.8/50 isn't sharper than the Tessar 2.8/50, there are countless examples.

Maybe with Canon the faster ones are better, Canon are a mass market maker and their standard lenses are usually competent but uninspiring so it makes sense that their faster lenses, being niche items of a much higher price level would be better than their mass market items.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, here are some unprocessed wide open shots I just took with the Hexanon 1.8/50 in poor light. No way can the Canon FD 1.8/50 match this level of performance, as Forenseil would say, they play in different leagues. As they are around the same price on ebay, no sense in picking the FD 1.8/50 over the the Hexanon:



I hope you realize that your personal experience can not prove or disprove anything. Simply because the experience of other people (for example mine) is just as valid and could be (and in this case it is) totally different. So what we exchange here is opinions and experience, but not the absolute truth.

It is true in general that faster lenses were more expensive, not just for Canon, but for any other lens maker (with caveat that specialty lenses such as macro play by different rules). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect higher optical quality from them. Canon is the line that I know best, but I see this trend in other lines as well, for example, Minolta MD.

In my experience, all 50mm f1.8/f1.7 from top tier Japanese manufacturers play in the same league and that definitely included Canon FD/FL, Konica 50/1.7 and 52/1.8, Minolta, Yashica ML all of which I own or owned in the past. I also have 50mm MD 1.4 and several copies of FD 1.4, and they do have an edge over all of my 1.7/1.8 normals. I wouldn't say that it's a huge edge, but I do see it consistently.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the 1.8, 1.7 and 57/1.4
The difference isn't big in sharpness. They are all good. I never made a direct comparision but I think the 1.8 is sharpest. They all have slight CAs and a slight glow when used wide open.

My tip: Go for theyr successors Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4, Minolta MD Rokkor 58/1.4 or the Minolta MD 50/2 (best CA control, contrast and colors) - they are all sligh tly better for my taste.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Where is the CA and glow on the wide open samples from the 1.8/50?

I can see a tiny bit of CA on the oof areas on one of the shots but it seems absent on the others, I don't see any glow either, not like you get from the Biotar 2/58 or Pancolar 1.8/50 or Meyer 1.8/50.

I have tried the Minolta Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 and it's excellent, I think as good as the Hexanon 1.7/50 but different in rendering, both are quite cool in colour tones.

Minolta Rokkor-PF 1.7/50:



Bottom line, you can't go wrong with any of the Konica or Minolta 50mm lenses, they are all great, same for the Konica 1.8/40 and Minolta 2/45 pancakes.

It's hard to find a poor 50mm lens, another option that is very cheap and great is the Pentacon Prakticar 1.8/50:



I'd rate the Pentacon, Konicas and Minoltas as better than the Canon FD 1.8/50 and as they are all dirt cheap, they are all good choices, just pick what you can find at the best price in the best condition.

If I had to pick just one cheap 50 I'd go for an early Jupiter-8 2.50 in M39, it's absolutely stunning:



PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I have the 1.8, 1.7 and 57/1.4
The difference isn't big in sharpness. They are all good. I never made a direct comparision but I think the 1.8 is sharpest. They all have slight CAs and a slight glow when used wide open.

My tip: Go for theyr successors Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4, Minolta MD Rokkor 58/1.4 or the Minolta MD 50/2 (best CA control, contrast and colors) - they are all sligh tly better for my taste.


Minolta MD not a successor of Konica , Konica and Minolta exists as invidual companies , Konica was oldest and most expensive maker like Zeiss or Leica. Later they did join to Konica-Minolta company if I remember as well it did happen in AF lens years . Both are good company with good products. After many Zeiss lenses I still love Konica Hexanons and Minolta Rokkors both.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ups, yes, you are right Attila! They fused after the MD lenses were produced so the Rokkors are no successors!
I thought they fused much earlier because I have some Minolta SR bodies which look nearly identical to my Konica AR bodies.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Where is the CA and glow on the wide open samples from the 1.8/50?

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


#5

All my Konica lenses around 50mm tend to do something like that (slight colored glow) espeically wide open (disappears when stopped down a bit more).
I don't know Pancolar and Meyer 50/1.8 but my Helios 44-2 has indeed a lot more glow than the Konicas Smile

I hope I didn't get missunderstood. I really like all the Konica lenses, but the Minolta MD 50/2 is optically slightly better than the 50 1.7- and 1.8 from Konica and I also think that my Minolta MD 50/1.4 is slightly better than the Konica 57/1.4 (I don't have the Konica
50/1.4 though).

To also spam with some Minolta examples (Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm 1.4, 49mm filter screw version, no sharpening):

Psychedelic Circus
(f/5.6)

(f/1.4 - wide open)
And the Minolta MD 50/2 is even visibly superior (mostly in contrast and colors).

Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:36 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aah, I see it on the red sign now, thanks. It is indeed slight compared to some others, hence I didn't see it.

I think it's worth repeating that any of the Konica or Minolta options will be more than adequate, they are all really good and the differences slight indeed.

I'd still go for a 1950's Jupiter-8 ahead of all of them though...


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil,

nice shots with the minolta lenses only thing is I have a konica ar adapter, a nikon adapter, and a m42 adapter but no minolta md adapter... hmm


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
MD adapter is 15-20USD, so not a big expense, it would be a nice investment as it opens up all the Minolta lenses too.

I honestly think all Konica and Minolta SLR lenses are worth having, not seen one yet that wasn't really nice. I am sure all Konicas are good, I am not so sure all Minoltas are, but I suspect they are, I just don't have experience of many of them, walter g is our resident Minolta expert.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would subscribe what iangreen said Smile
ramcewan wrote:
ForenSeil,

nice shots with the minolta lenses only thing is I have a konica ar adapter, a nikon adapter, and a m42 adapter but no minolta md adapter... hmm


As said you won't do anything wrong with Konica Prime lens around 50mm
Some of the Minoltas are a little better, but that's more or less like counting pixels and it should be more matter of taste as they are all very good.
It's more important to get one cheap and in good condition.

To find your taste you could use Flickr(iver) or Google to find example pictures and have a look at the out of focus and color rendering... you may find a favourite this way.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting reading about 50mms. Well I don't know whether other film users would agree with me but for me:- ordinary 50mms are my least used lenses...and can only think of a use for my Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 was if I was in a low light situation and couldn't use flash or tripod.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
They fused after the MD lenses were produced so the Rokkors are no successors!


the fusion was 2003-2004, thats the reason why you won't see a "Konica-Minolta" sign on any Minolta film body Wink


For the Hexanons: get them all (1.4-1.8/50mm and 1.4/57mm) and check which you like most. Like you said it's not all about sharpness, thats why I prefer the 1.4/57 over the others.. for me it has the most interesting character.
If you get them cheap enough you won't loose any money when selling the others.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:


For the Hexanons: get them all (1.4-1.8/50mm and 1.4/57mm) and check which you like most...
If you get them cheap enough you won't loose any money when selling the others.


LOL that is the rub with buying used lenses, it is very easy to adapt the "buy and try" mentality and buy them all and then sell the ones you don't like as the price is pretty stable from one week to the next. The downside is that you lose the cost of shipping each time.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
...If I had to pick just one cheap 50 I'd go for an early Jupiter-8 2.50 in M39, it's absolutely stunning:


wow I really like this shot... when you say early Jupiter can you be a bit more specific? there seem to be many variations of the Jupiter-8, some more common/cheap then others such as the Jupiter-8M... with these russian lenses I am a little less keen to buy and try.[/i]


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
..it all depends on how cheap you can get them.. if you can wait a bit for a good deal, it won't be a problem to make even a tiny profit when selling the unwanted lenses Wink

And no kidding.. you better try them for yourself, when asking here for two lenses.. you will get at least ten completly different recommendations Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best J8s are the ones with the red P (looks like an n) symbol and a serial number starting in 5 (Denotes it is from the 1950s).

Later ones can be as good but there is variation between copies with the later ones.

My J8 is on the left of the row of four lenses:



PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
just picked up the 50mm f1.8 for $9.99 USD based on folks recommendations

can't wait to try it out.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You'll be very happy with the 1.8/50 for sure, it's one of the sharpest 50-ish lenses wide open and I like all aspects of it, rich colours, great contrast, smooth bokeh, for 10 bucks you couldn't get a better lens imho.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have or had all Hexanon 50's and the 57mm 1.4. They are all excellent. The 50/1.7 and the 57/1.4 are my favorites due to their rendering. The 57's bokeh is really nice. The 50/1.7 EE is a great b&w lens due to lower contrast. The 50/1.8 was my least favorite due to color rendition, which was different from the other Hexanons.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3