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: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Hexanon 50mm f1.4 or f1.7? Reply with quote
conventional wisdom dictates that the faster lens is better, right?

but http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonUebersicht.html says that the 1.7 is better?!?

What experiences do people have?

Last edited by ramcewan on Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:31 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better. I have all , but I don't know which one is better.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the konica 57/1.4 is the best of all of them imo. i really liked all my konica ar lenses very much, and thought for the price they were the best slr lenses. but when i recently sold my collection of 6 lenses, the single one i kept was the 57/1.4.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have 1.8/50, 1.7/50, 1.4/50, all late AE versions.

All are great, all very sharp, I can't decided which is sharpest, rendering differs between them, I think 1.7 is my favourite but they are all great and pretty similar.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better...


I guess I should qualify - better in terms of producing better shots over more ranges of conditions.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better. I have all , but I don't know which one is better.


Disagree. Mine experience is that faster lenses are better, at least up to a certain point. My main point of reference is Canon FD line. FD 50mm/f1.4 is clearly a better lens than FD 50mm/1.8. Minolta MD 50mm/f1.4 is also clearly better than Minolta 50mm/f1.7. The same holds true for 28mm and 35mm FD lenses, where f2.0 versions are ahead of f2.8 versions pretty much in any regard except weight. In all these cases the differences at the same aperture are small, but they are there at least until F4. Here's more formal review of FD 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 that matches my experience very well.

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1546
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1527

Now specifically for Hexanons, I can not tell, as I don't have f1.4 lens. I do have an f1.7 lens and it's a good one indeed, about on the same level as Minolta MD 50mm/1.7. If you don't want to spend for f1.4, get f1.7 and you'll be very happy. However, my personal opinion, based on Minolta and Canon, is that stepping up to f1.4 50mm is money well spent.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had both FD 1.4/50 and FD 1.8/50, neither is a great lens, the 1.4 was soft at 1.4 and wasn't sharper than the 1.8 at 1.8 or any other aperture. So i wouldn't say it was better.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ramcewan wrote:
Attila wrote:
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better...


I guess I should qualify - better in terms of producing better shots over more ranges of conditions.

All of the lenses produce excellent results; there are no slackers nor lemons in the Konica line-up. You didn't mention the 57mm f1.2, which is just as well; it having such a huge front glass element, one would most likely need a hood. However, as far as the "producing of better shots", the results won't differ from the lens quality, but from the film/sensor, the subject, and most importantly, the eye/brain of the shooter.

Last edited by aspen on Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aspen wrote:
ramcewan wrote:
Attila wrote:
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better...


I guess I should qualify - better in terms of producing better shots over more ranges of conditions.

All of the lenses produce excellent results; there are no slackers nor lemons in the Konica line-up. You didn't mention the 50mm f1.2, which is just as well; it having such a huge front glass element, one would most likely need a hood. However, as far as the "producing of better shots", the results won't differ from the lens quality, but from the film/sensor, the subject, and most importantly, the eye/brain of the shooter.


+1, differences so small that other factors are much more important.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
aspen wrote:
ramcewan wrote:
Attila wrote:
Usually faster lenses are more expensive but rarely better...


I guess I should qualify - better in terms of producing better shots over more ranges of conditions.

All of the lenses produce excellent results; there are no slackers nor lemons in the Konica line-up. You didn't mention the 50mm f1.2, which is just as well; it having such a huge front glass element, one would most likely need a hood. However, as far as the "producing of better shots", the results won't differ from the lens quality, but from the film/sensor, the subject, and most importantly, the eye/brain of the shooter.


+1, differences so small that other factors are much more important.

*edit*
57mm f1.2
Cool


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I had both FD 1.4/50 and FD 1.8/50, neither is a great lens, the 1.4 was soft at 1.4 and wasn't sharper than the 1.8 at 1.8 or any other aperture. So i wouldn't say it was better.


Vehemently disagree. I had/have 3 copies of FD 50mm/1.4. Each of them is truly a great lens. Will post the pictures the other day.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had two copies of the FD 1.4/50, one had some fungus, neither was sharp wide open, both my Konica 1.4/50 and Miranda 1.4/50 are a lot sharper wide open.

FD 1.4/50 wide open, 100% crop, pretty soft and in many shots it had quite a lot of CA on oof areas, I sold mine after one test shoot as it was highly mediocre:



Hexanon 1.8/50 wide open, this is what I call sharp:




PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wide open?
Surprised


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the 1.8/50 and 1.7/50 Hexanons are both laser sharp, even wide open.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Must get one then, as soon as possible.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Indeed, the 1.8/50 is very common and very cheap on ebay.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TBF i have to say i have two AR 50 F1.7, 1x Ar 50 1.8 a 57mm F1.4 and the 40mm 1.8
And personally as per Ian, i like the 1.8 more than the 1.7 is sharp as a laser at 1.8 infact its probably my sharpest WO lens, only comparable to the Minolta 50mm PG F1.4 and the Minolta 58mm 1.4 PF.
Price is a lot cheaper than the 1.7 and the 1.4.
And yes i know everyone rates the 1.7 more than the 1.8 but i choose that lens.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Eddie, the 1.8/50 is probably my favourite too, the 1.7 is also laser sharp but I think the 1.8 is sharper wide open. The 1.7 has a little more 3d dimensionality to it's rendering but if I had to chose which one was better, I couldn't, they are different but one isn't better than the other, it's subjective. The 1.7 feels and looks like a higher quality item, it's larger, heavier and has a larger front element, but I like the small size and light weight of the 1./8/50.

I'd also consider the 1.8/40 as well, it's also excellent.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree with Eddie, the 1.8/50 is probably my favourite too, the 1.7 is also laser sharp but I think the 1.8 is sharper wide open. The 1.7 has a little more 3d dimensionality to it's rendering but if I had to chose which one was better, I couldn't, they are different but one isn't better than the other, it's subjective. The 1.7 feels and looks like a higher quality item, it's larger, heavier and has a larger front element, but I like the small size and light weight of the 1./8/50.

I'd also consider the 1.8/40 as well, it's also excellent.


I have the 1.8/40 and i like it although i find some shots soft. Not sure if its my copy or probably more likely my skills, seems like the dof is razor razor thin on close subjects wo


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:19 am    Post subject: Re: Hexanon 50mm f1.4 or f1.7? Reply with quote
Hi!

I have both an AR 50 1.4 and AR 50 1.7. I love the handling of the 1.4, as well as the rendering. It's as good as my (excellent) FD 50 1.4 copy. My copy of the AR 50 1.7 is only so-so, and I wouldn't recommend it. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 1.7 or something.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have/had several 1.8/50, 1.7/50, 1.4/50, 1.4/57 and one 1.2/57... all of them are great. While the 50's may a bit sharper wide open, I would say the 57mm Hexanons have a nicer bokeh.

Hard to tell which one to get.. they can be found cheap (except the 1.2/57), maybe get all of them Wink


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Re: Hexanon 50mm f1.4 or f1.7? Reply with quote
glasslover wrote:
Hi!

I have both an AR 50 1.4 and AR 50 1.7. I love the handling of the 1.4, as well as the rendering. It's as good as my (excellent) FD 50 1.4 copy. My copy of the AR 50 1.7 is only so-so, and I wouldn't recommend it. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 1.7 or something.

Cheers!



In my test for resolution:- crops of shots (at about 100yards) and the Canon 50mm f1.4 was just very slightly better than the AR 50mm f1.7...erm work that one out Wink The AR 50mm f1.7 is a very sharp lens (at least stopped down the way I use it) and when compared to lenses like Meyer/Pentacon or Helios 50mms is a better buy if bought for the same price.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I had two copies of the FD 1.4/50, one had some fungus, neither was sharp wide open, both my Konica 1.4/50 and Miranda 1.4/50 are a lot sharper wide open.

FD 1.4/50 wide open, 100% crop, pretty soft and in many shots it had quite a lot of CA on oof areas, I sold mine after one test shoot as it was highly mediocre:
Hexanon 1.8/50 wide open, this is what I call sharp:


The usual caveat about sample variations applies. However, I had 3 FDs 50/1.4 and they were all the same, so I believe my copies are representative. Here are the shots from my Canon FDs 50/1.4 . Hexanon 50mm/1.7 is a great lens, but not on the same level as FD 50/1.4.

First, wide open shots. Note that the wedding picture was intentionally softened with negative clarity and contrast.






And here are some stopped-down shots. The wedding picture is a heavy crop, so what you are seeing is, in fact, 50% view.





PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3