Hexanon 40/1.8 slr Pancake

[ampguy]

Got this today with a Hexanon AR to nex adapter. Surprisingly small (for an SLR lens), nice focal length, close focus, and seems like a nice match for the NEX.

Anyone ever compare this lens with the Pen 38/1.8 or 40/1.4 on the NEX?

Now that I've got the adapter, any other Hexanon AR SLR lenses to keep an eye out for?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

57/1.2 ouch No more Nocti-envy.

But seriously all of the AR lenses are amazing. 50/1.7 is a bokeh machine and the 100/2.8 is as nice a portrait lens as I have ever seen.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

57/1.2 ouch No more Nocti-envy.

But seriously all of the AR lenses are amazing. 50/1.7 is a bokeh machine and the 100/2.8 is as nice a portrait lens as I have ever seen.

Best of all: the Konica AR lenses are dirt cheap. It is like the Pentax thread-mount glass. Reeealy good optics at very low cost. I have

24/3.5
28/2.8
50/1.7
50/1.4
57/1.2
100/2.8

Except for the 57mm lens, I purchased them together from a dealer here in Burlington, who probably thought I was nuts. That group cost about $35 per lens, and I think I probably overpaid.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I love that lens. I just bought another Konica TC-X body ($5, KEH as-is) to replace one I ruined when I put my finger through the shutter during a rushed film change :bang:

I just hope we're not driving up the prices. Nothing to see here, folks. Dead system. Dead company, even.

 

[Yashi]

same here... Best investment you can make atm...GAS heeeeelp !!!

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Benjamin

Thanks Benjamin

How do the sizes on the 50s compare? It is interesting that these are still very low, while the Pen lens seem to have gone up possibly from m4/3 and nex users wanting the small size.

It's interesting that when looking at past sales of many of these lenses, they are cheaper if you take an old body with the lens. Perhaps someone lucky will get a nice vintage Konica film body for Christmas next year :angel:

Best of all: the Konica AR lenses are dirt cheap. It is like the Pentax thread-mount glass. Reeealy good optics at very low cost. I have

24/3.5
28/2.8
50/1.7
50/1.4
57/1.2
100/2.8

Except for the 57mm lens, I purchased them together from a dealer here in Burlington, who probably thought I was nuts. That group cost about $35 per lens, and I think I probably overpaid.

 

[ampguy]

nice collection

nice collection

Yashi - amazing that you got all the caps with your lenses!!

same here... Best investment you can make atm...GAS heeeeelp !!!

 

[Roberto V.]

I second the 50 1.7, my best friend has one and it's a great lens. 57 1.2 is just amazing. The wide angles are good too and very inexpensive.

Sorry to go off topic, but if anyone has a battery holder for a Konica FT-1, or a cheap parts camera, please PM me

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I will try to post a comparative picture of the lens sizes, next to something known like a 50 Summicron or a Nikkor. The 40mm you started the thread off with is more pancake-y than the others and the most compact of the group I listed.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

AR Hexanons - size comparison

AR Hexanons - size comparison

In the first and second pictures:
50/1.7
DR Summicron (for size comparison)
40/1.8
28/3.5
24/2.8
57/1.2

Third picture, clockwise from the lower-left corner:

40/1.8
100/2.8
57/1.2
28/3.5
50/1.7
24/2.8

Should give a sense of the relative sizes.

Ben

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Benjamin

Thanks Benjamin

Very helpful.

I've got an AR 57/1.4 on the way. I'll let you know how it stacks up size wise to the 40/1.8, which I think is the only other lens I have out of your batch.

I think I'm adapter'd out for now with the M, C, F, and AR adapters. Had to order some extra caps!

In the first and second pictures:
50/1.7
DR Summicron (for size comparison)
40/1.8
28/3.5
24/2.8
57/1.2

Third picture, clockwise from the lower-left corner:

40/1.8
100/2.8
55/1.2
28/3.5
50/1.7
24/2.8

Should give a sense of the relative sizes.

Ben

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I think you will be really pleased with the 57. My completely uninformed speculation is that it is this lens (or 57/1.2) that led Konica to create the 60/1.2 in M-mount. It is great for isolating the subject and is sharper wide open than either the Nikon 50/1.2 or the Noctilux at f:1 (at least for the samples I have). The 40 is at the other end of the spectrum - super sharp, very compact -- a great "everyday" lens. With the Olympus EP-2's anti-shake tech, the 57 really is an "available darkness" lens. With the NEX? Don't know yet. My adapter arrives tomorrow, I hope.

Post some pix!

Ben

 

[ampguy]

Hi Benjamin

Hi Benjamin

I'm getting the 57/1.4, not the 1.2. I'm not sure what to expect, but the 57/1.2 is too pricey for me.

The 57/1.4 has one element and group less than the 1.2 (6/5), and weighs 10 oz. vs 16 oz. Not sure what the physical size, or image quality differences will be.

I think you will be really pleased with the 57. My completely uninformed speculation is that it is this lens (or 57/1.2) that led Konica to create the 60/1.2 in M-mount. It is great for isolating the subject and is sharper wide open than either the Nikon 50/1.2 or the Noctilux at f:1 (at least for the samples I have). The 40 is at the other end of the spectrum - super sharp, very compact -- a great "everyday" lens. With the Olympus EP-2's anti-shake tech, the 57 really is an "available darkness" lens. With the NEX? Don't know yet. My adapter arrives tomorrow, I hope.

Post some pix!

Ben

 

[PatrickT]

Now you all have me wanting to buy a few Konica lenses...along with a new body...damn you! 🙂

 

[pesphoto]

Now you all have me wanting to buy a few Konica lenses...along with a new body...damn you! 🙂

The FS-1 with 40mm 1.8 is my main shooter.....

 

[uhoh7]

My 40 is EXE in appearance but has a bit of fungus on the edges. Doesn't seem to bother it one bit. Allways surprises me with sharpness, even wide open. They say that 50 1.7 is really wicked sharp, but I have too many 50's now, hehe.

 

[ampguy]

Got my 57/1.4, can't wait to test it out. Size wise, it is around the same as the AR 50/1.4, much smaller than the 57/1.2, but there are some reviews that mention the 50/1.4 is much better than the 57/1.4:

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonUebersicht.html

Below are some image comparisons from a dpreview forum member who prefers the 57/1.4, over his 57/1.2 though not sure if it's because of the IQ, or the size, or maybe individual sample variation.

I doubt I'll get the 57/1.2 to compare, but will be able to compare with the 40/1.8 sort of as it's much longer, and just a tad faster.

http://gf1.s3.amazonaws.com/grid/pictures.htm

 

[ampguy]

Here are some photos which show the relative sizes:

ps: note the distortion of the nex 16/2.8 (was taken super close - few inches away)

L to R: 40/1.8 pancake, 57/1.4, LTM Jupiter 3: