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

Which Hexanons to look for?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ian - nice shots.... I am on the hunt for one of those at a reasonable price. Last one I saw went over $200 but there are always autoreflex camera lots out there with hidden gems. To the op - I would highly suggest you shop for konica cameras with lenses as that is a great way to acquire many lenses cheaply


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ramcewan wrote:
ian - nice shots.... I am on the hunt for one of those at a reasonable price. Last one I saw went over $200 but there are always autoreflex camera lots out there with hidden gems. To the op - I would highly suggest you shop for konica cameras with lenses as that is a great way to acquire many lenses cheaply


That is how I acquired most of my Hexanons, I bought two job lots, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford the 21 and 24mm.

I rate the 1.7/50 higher than the Minolta Rokkor-PF 1.7/50 I had , and quite a lot better than the Canon FD 1.8/50s I've had.

I compared the Hexanon 1.8/40 to the Minolta MD 2/45, Yashica ML 2/50 and Pentacon 2.4/50 pancakes and all-round it was the best. The Yashica might have been slightly sharper and the Minolta had smoother out of focus rendering and transition from in-focus to out-of-focus but overall, I felt the Hexanon was probably the best of those four pancakes. I kept the Minolta as well though as it has a character I like.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried the Hexar 3.5/28 on my Konica FT-1 today, it's much smaller and lighter than the Hexanon 3.5/28.

I don't see anything other than typical Konica quality, seems like a good lens to me.





PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's a lot of recommendations in this topic, and the feeling seems to be that Konica lenses in general are very good.

Are there any to avoid ?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think so, I have most of them and they are all great. The zooms are great too.

The cheaper Hexars - 3.5/28, 3.5/135 and 4/200 would seem to be the least good ones going by logic but my impression of the 28 and 135 is that they are really good.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
There's a lot of recommendations in this topic, and the feeling seems to be that Konica lenses in general are very good.

Are there any to avoid ?


52mm f1.8 gave everything a warm glow and wasn't sharp imho - maybe better on film but on my pen it was not worth the few bucks I paid for it


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ramcewan wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
There's a lot of recommendations in this topic, and the feeling seems to be that Konica lenses in general are very good.

Are there any to avoid ?


52mm f1.8 gave everything a warm glow and wasn't sharp imho - maybe better on film but on my pen it was not worth the few bucks I paid for it

small sensor like Pen have very sensitive for lens quality for sure, I did use Olympus E-1 and Panasonic G1 I thought my Tamron SP 17mm is pretty crap, when I got Sony NEX-3 my opinion is changed well about this lens I kept it. If a lens so so on 4/3 not means bad lens just not one of the best.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
There's a lot of recommendations in this topic, and the feeling seems to be that Konica lenses in general are very good.

Are there any to avoid ?


Well maybe the Konica forum might know.....as I haven't read of any Konica lenses to avoid.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/konicaslr/


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
ramcewan wrote:


52mm f1.8 gave everything a warm glow and wasn't sharp imho - maybe better on film but on my pen it was not worth the few bucks I paid for it

small sensor like Pen have very sensitive for lens quality for sure, I did use Olympus E-1 and Panasonic G1 I thought my Tamron SP 17mm is pretty crap, when I got Sony NEX-3 my opinion is changed well about this lens I kept it. If a lens so so on 4/3 not means bad lens just not one of the best.


+1. Pen certainly is very unforgiving for lens quality. I have 52/1.8 and Pen and I wouldn't say it's the lens to avoid. 50/1.7 is sharper at large apertures a bit, but 52/1.8 is sharp enough and warm glow works well for portraits and mood shots. Stopped down I don't think there is a difference between them at all.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
in my defense I will point out that the original poster was talking about using it on the olympus omd em5, thus I think the 52mm f1.8 not working well on my pen is pertinent.

Second i will say quote www.buhla.de

Quote:
In my opinion, it is only interesting for collectors who are looking for a historically correct lens for their old AR bayonet camera body. For photography, the successor model Hexanon AR 50 mm / F1.7 is a better choice, which can likewise be bought very cheaply


finally I will say as always your mileage may vary but in my humble opinion there are so many better Hexanons that the 52mm f1.8 should be avoided. Again just my opinion, but I think it is pertinent since it is based on experience with the m4/3 format which the op is using and it is backed up by www.buhla.de

I in no way want to pretend I know better than everyone else here cause I know I don't.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the same buhla says
Quote:

Image quality of the Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8 is outstanding – some photography magazines praised it as one of the sharpest lenses ever built by any manufacturer for 35 mm cameras.

IMHO 40mm Hexanon is not any better than 52mm f1.8. Usable lens, pancake, but there are sharper lenses out there. At first I thought I had a subpar copy of the pancake. But then I saw this
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1902 and this
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&message=41251542

Here's 52/1.8 on m4/3, excellent images all around.



http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=50070


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Well, the same buhla says
Quote:

Image quality of the Hexanon AR 40 mm / F1.8 is outstanding – some photography magazines praised it as one of the sharpest lenses ever built by any manufacturer for 35 mm cameras.

IMHO 40mm Hexanon is not any better than 52mm f1.8. Usable lens, pancake, but there are sharper lenses out there. At first I thought I had a subpar copy of the pancake. But then I saw this
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1902 and this
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&message=41251542

Here's 52/1.8 on m4/3, excellent images all around.



http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=50070



H'mm you missed out the following bit "Whether or not this is true is left open, but certainly the lens renders razor-sharp images with very high contrast and even illumination from edge to edge."

Well I bought two 40mm F1.8 for under £10 ea a few years ago and they are very sharp to me on a film camera, so what's the massive difference between a $500 lens and the Hexanon....if both are stopped down. If you want VG results wide open then you pay $500 as shown in this link:-

http://northcoastphotos.com/ncphoto/old/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:


H'mm you missed out the following bit "Whether or not this is true is left open, but certainly the lens renders razor-sharp images with very high contrast and even illumination from edge to edge."


Not really missed. A sentence below he writes that it plays in the same league as 50/1.7, which is a sharp lens indeed. Alright, maybe it plays, just as Barcelona and Osasuna play in the same league...

Quote:

Well I bought two 40mm F1.8 for under £10 ea a few years ago and they are very sharp to me on a film camera, so what's the massive difference between a $500 lens and the Hexanon....if both are stopped down. If you want VG results wide open then you pay $500 as shown in this link:-

http://northcoastphotos.com/ncphoto/old/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm


Nothing's wrong with 40 f1.8 Hexanon. I've kept mine. However, to get better results wide open, you don't need to pay $500. For example you can get Canon FD 1.4, for not very much. Check out the second of my links, Canon looks better wide open than pancake at f2.8. Or get Hexanon 50/1.7 or 1.4, they are about the same as Canon wide open.

Perhaps, the pecking order changes significantly when we go to crop bodies, I don't know. I've only used the lenses on m4/3 and NEX. But this "one of the sharpest ever" claims leaves me puzzled.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:


Perhaps, the pecking order changes significantly when we go to crop bodies, I don't know. I've only used the lenses on m4/3 and NEX. But this "one of the sharpest ever" claims leaves me puzzled.


Well the answer is probably "once upon a time"...looking at the Buhla link in 15 years time and it will still say the same and everyone in the future will also think views from magazines, with no names, mentioned were done in 2027 Wink


PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If wide open performance is the concern, get a Pancolar 1.8/50 or Hexanon 1.8/50, those two are the best wide open performers among all the 50s I've tried. The Canon FD 1.4/50s I had weren't in the same league.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2