The 40-50 mm lens comparison no one needed!

[simple.joy]

Okay, okay... this is more like a small just-for-fun topic, because I'm certainly no lens-tester. But recently I realized that I have a couple of (at least to me) interesting lenses between 40-45 mm and a maximum f-stop of around f/1.8 or f/1.9... When one of my kids brought a Banjo home today from Kindergarden (don't worry, he was allowed to borrow it!) I thought this might be a great opportunity to create a scene for a test shot to compare those lenses.

Why that thought occurred? I really can't tell you. But it did and here I am with a couple of (non-scientific) test shots to compare a handful of lenses I find interesting in terms of close-up quality and rendering. The lenses in question are:

Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm f/1.8

Okaya Optic Highkor 40 mm f/1.8

Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor 4.5 cm f/1.9

Tomioka Tominon C 4.5 cm f/1.9

Agfa Ocellar 5 cm f/? (likely something around f/2)

All of those were shot wide open, the Agfa Ocellar was thrown in because I've been interested in a.) how fast it really is and b.) because I wondered about its rendering and how it would compare to more conventional lenses. Of course there would be countless options to add if 50 mm was included in general, but that's way outside of what I'm willing to put into something like this at the moment and it surely has been done a number of times (just better) already.

Here are the single shots:

Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm f/1.8


Okaya Optic Highkor 40 mm f/1.8


Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor 4.5 cm f/1.9


Tomioka Tominon C 4.5 cm f/1.9


Agfa Ocellar 5 cm f/?


Here's a crop from the center to see the difference in detail and contrast:

Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm f/1.8


Okaya Optic Highkor 40 mm f/1.8


Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor 4.5 cm f/1.9


Tomioka Tominon C 4.5 cm f/1.9


Agfa Ocellar 5 cm f/?


And finally here's crop from the lower edge (not quite the corner, but I guess you'll agree it doesn't really make a big difference with these lenses wide open...)

Konica Hexanon AR 40 mm f/1.8


Okaya Optic Highkor 40 mm f/1.8


Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor 4.5 cm f/1.9


Tomioka Tominon C 4.5 cm f/1.9


Agfa Ocellar 5 cm f/?


Apart from the fact that some of these lenses could benefit from a proper cleaning, I have to say, that I'm quite surprised about the results:

First of all, if you had asked me for my gut feeling, I would have expected more similarities in the rendering of all those lenses. The Tominon and Petri Orikkor seem to be related, but even with those there are tiny differences.

Secondly I wouldn't have expected the Tominon to be as dominant in terms of sharpness/detail. I was fairly sure that the Hexanon AR would wipe the floor with the rest, particularly because (I believe) it's newer and it also was the only lens which had some kind of improvised hood (because of the way I had to adapt it, it was recessed and so likely shielded the best from stray light, even though that surely this wasn't a harsh situation to begin with). At least in my perception the Tominon clearly is the best in the center and even slightly better at the edge of the frame.

And finally - in terms of how the rendering looks overall - I feel ike it's even more a matter of taste than I would have expected. In this particular shot I like the OOF highlight rendering, as well as the (somewhat softer and lower contrast) images of the Highkor and Ocellar best, but I can immediately think of shots where the crispness of whatever is in focus would make the Tominon my preferred choice. When it comes to versatility the Hexanon AR might make up some ground, particularly because it's known to be very good stopped down and it likely got the best coatings as well. The Petri Orikkor finally... while it didn't fully convince me in this comparison, can also show its unique qualities in different situations, particularly in natural light outside. Will have to see if the Tominon is able to keep up there...

I've no idea if those results would be similar at distance but I'm fairly convinced it would be necessary to stop all of these lenses down considerably (which would be impossible with the Ocellar of course, it being a projection lens) and I also don't see a good reason for using any of those for landscapes, apart from maybe the Konica... well, after this test maybe it would be interesting to see how the Tominon does as well. So perhaps I'll try it and provide an update.

[alex_d]

im not sure whats the point of this test, non of those lesnes are made or suitable for such photography.

But yes, they can be used as we see - results could be used for some editorials with a skilled designer.


I think that some of those lenses are from rangefinders?
If yes, please let us know how did you adapt them and if you can use diafragma.

[caspert79]

Thanks for doing this. Based on these images, my preference goes to the Tominon (contrast, sharpness, uniform bokeh balls).

[simple.joy]

[alex ph]

Tominon is a clear "winner" as for overall detail and contrast, meantime I like the Orikkor rendering which is punchy. In smartphone screen where you do not see so much of detail it looks even more attractive. Well done!

[blotafton]

Interesting test. I'd take the Tominon in this lineup.

When testing my Hexanon 40mm f1.8 I was surprised at the sharpness out to the edges. But the bokeh is a bit eccentric but it will probably win in a landscape test.

[visualopsins]

[Ernst Dinkla]

The Tomioka Tominon C 45mm 1.9 is labeled with that name? On which rangefinder?

C-mount has 1" diameter and 32 tpi thread, quite rougher than the #00 Copal shutter size of 25mm with 0.5mm thread, So be careful.
https://www.suaudeau.eu/memo/pratique/Les_obturateurs_centraux.html

My experience with salvaged fixed 45mm lenses of analoge rangefinder cameras shows few that can be used as landscape lenses on FF camera sensors if edge to edge IQ is considered. At best with mid range subjects then.

[simple.joy]

[kymarto]

Thanks for that! I always like to see such comparisons. Never heard of the Agfa Ocellar, but looks interesting. I can easily see in your tests why I like the Highkor, despite its mediocre performance. Those bright edges! You know what I do with those...

#1

[simple.joy]

[alex_d]

i would like to see a picture of coupling / adapting please,

and for those close ups - i can only admire artistic flare but I will not try it cause its not my thing

[simple.joy]

[alex_d]

"artistic flare" literary as that and not as 'lens flare',

i could say ' this lens makes an aquarel ..' too ..

[simple.joy]

[alex_d]

[Ernst Dinkla]

https://customphototools.com/macro-adapters-for-schneider/

To adapt the lens to a M42 helicoid.

I normally use a 3D printed part with M39 thread + a M39 to M42 metal ring to reduce wear. That way I get the aperture scale upright and infinity more correct. The Yashinon '35' lenses have good helicoids themselves so they are used in the conversion. Looks way better too.

[simple.joy]

[alex_d]

[alex_d]

[simple.joy]

[blotafton]

[Ernst Dinkla]

[alex_d]

[alex_d]