40/1.8 Hexanon -- Should I?

Trius

Waiting on Maitani
Local time
10:21 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,130
Location
Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Please help me not buy this. It comes on a TC body (meter non-operative, which seems to be common), and in all the Googling I've done on the lens, it seems to get some high marks, even here on RFF. 😀

So do I need it? No. It's a cheap kit ($35USD), but I'd have to drive a bit or have it shipped. My thinking has been:

  • The pancake design makes a really compact package on the small TC body
  • Most reports (though not all) say it's very sharp
  • There are reports of some bokeh unpleasantness at certain apertures ... I like good bokeh, but am not a bokeh freak
  • It seems to be pretty easy to modify to fit other mounts, especially 4/3s. If that's the case, it would probably even work on an OM.
  • I could sell it on for the same or even a bit of profit if I wanted to

However, I don't need it, and the $35 could be banked towards a Barnack or M/ZI-M.

Please someone tell me it's not worth the time and effort!
 
Ive had one for a few months, it's a great lens. Use it on an FS-1 body. I mostly shoot high iso and stop down, not a big fan of Out of focus backgrounds.
 
Konica TC was my first SLR circa 1977 - took another 15 years to get the 40 after my original 50/1.7 hexanon wore out. The 40 has stayed on there since! Great little lens. (And I wish I still had my 28/1.8 UC !)
 
Here is a recent pic with the 40 1.8
I find the 40mm just right as 35mm is a bit too wide for me and it gives a bit more than 50mm.

Elmhurst2.jpg
 
Done deal!

Body-wise, the T4 and FT-1 are the ones to get. FT-1 is famous for non-working battery contact, so check it first.

Lens-wise, you'll like 35/2, 50/1.4, and (surprise!) 80-200/4 UC zoom (make sure it has UC on the front, otherwise it's the inferior version).
 
Back
Top Bottom