raid
Dad Photographer
The reported sharpness of the 50/2.4 in addition to its beauty got me interested in this lens.
Konica 50/2.4 LTM?
- Thread starter gdi
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 107
- Views 27K
The reported sharpness of the 50/2.4 in addition to its beauty got me interested in this lens.
Hern
Established
I just took delivery of mine, I'll run it for a week or so and report back to this thread, stay tuned...
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I own both of them. On a couple of occasions, I checked the 50/2,4 against the 50 KM. The former is on an Amedeo 6-bit adapter and the latter was collimated very precisely for the Leica M8.
In essence, it's a close call in performance and comes down to sharpness vs bokeh. Sometimes it seems that the 50/2.4 is a bit sharper wide-open, and does not have quite the same bokeh but you have to remember that it's halfway to f/2.8.
As far as the build, the 2.4 has a focusing tab and a lighter focusing touch than the somewhat stiff 2.0. The 2.4 does not feel quite as solid (because there it has less in the way of silumin castings), but the "wobble" some people have reported is somewhat chimeric. I think I decided a while back that it was actually a rotational-type movement related to the helicoid key that is irrelevant to optical performance. It all but disappears when the lens is on the camera.
The 2.4 does collapse correctly into an M typ 240, but you also get the sense that if you made a habit of it, the barrel would get scratched up eventually. On the other hand, the 2.0's checkered grip has defined enough edges that you almost feel like it could cut you.
D
In essence, it's a close call in performance and comes down to sharpness vs bokeh. Sometimes it seems that the 50/2.4 is a bit sharper wide-open, and does not have quite the same bokeh but you have to remember that it's halfway to f/2.8.
As far as the build, the 2.4 has a focusing tab and a lighter focusing touch than the somewhat stiff 2.0. The 2.4 does not feel quite as solid (because there it has less in the way of silumin castings), but the "wobble" some people have reported is somewhat chimeric. I think I decided a while back that it was actually a rotational-type movement related to the helicoid key that is irrelevant to optical performance. It all but disappears when the lens is on the camera.
The 2.4 does collapse correctly into an M typ 240, but you also get the sense that if you made a habit of it, the barrel would get scratched up eventually. On the other hand, the 2.0's checkered grip has defined enough edges that you almost feel like it could cut you.
D
raid
Dad Photographer
Dante: why are you keeping both lenses? Do you keep many 50mm lenses (as I am doing), or are you so positively impressed by the Hexanon pair that you kept both?
Which Amedeo adapter do you use with the ltm lens? I did not know that Amedeo makes a ltm-M adapter.
Which Amedeo adapter do you use with the ltm lens? I did not know that Amedeo makes a ltm-M adapter.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Amedeo used to make LTM adapters. They are like Milich, only they have more of a CNC feel than Milich's hand-hewn look.
As to the rest, inertia! I have been toying with the idea of selling the M lens (because I have a ton of other lenses that serve the "kind to subjects" role - so there should be some kind of general 50mm apocalypse...), but the reality is that I use the 50/2 and 50/2.4 equally infrequently.
Dante
raid
Dad Photographer
I love the adapters that Amedeo creates. I may one day pick up such an LTM adapter.
I have set my max limit to $500 for whatever lens I may buy next one day. I missed out on buying the Hexanon 50/2.4 at a low cost at RFF last week.
I have set my max limit to $500 for whatever lens I may buy next one day. I missed out on buying the Hexanon 50/2.4 at a low cost at RFF last week.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
raid
Dad Photographer
The two photos of the children look beautiful to me. Maybe, the Hexanon 50/2.4 is what I will target after all. I own a 50/2.8 (old version) Elmar but not the M version, so I should see so improvements overall with a Hexanon lens. I have a feeling that the M9 will match very well with the Hexanon.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Konica 50/2.4 LTM?
At the risk of falling victim to a bunch of enablers, I'm having a mild attack of compulsive need for a Konica 50/2.4. I blame my Hexar AF for this; the more I look at the photos it produces, the more I am impressed with the lens. While this might suggest finding a Konica 35/2 in LTM (the L, not the later UC), it also A) costs more, and B) duplicates the Hexar. Should I decide to sell the Hexar at some point, well, the 35/2 is where the money would go, but that's for another time.
In any case, there's not a lot of info on the 50/2.4. I read a few reports of potential wobbliness in the barrel, and saw a few sample photos here and there, but not a lot. Anyone who owns or has owned one of these, please enlighten me; rendering comparisons with the Hexar AF lens would be especially useful. If you had one but sold it, please tell me why. Depending on the responses, I may need to be talked down later, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
At the risk of falling victim to a bunch of enablers, I'm having a mild attack of compulsive need for a Konica 50/2.4. I blame my Hexar AF for this; the more I look at the photos it produces, the more I am impressed with the lens. While this might suggest finding a Konica 35/2 in LTM (the L, not the later UC), it also A) costs more, and B) duplicates the Hexar. Should I decide to sell the Hexar at some point, well, the 35/2 is where the money would go, but that's for another time.
In any case, there's not a lot of info on the 50/2.4. I read a few reports of potential wobbliness in the barrel, and saw a few sample photos here and there, but not a lot. Anyone who owns or has owned one of these, please enlighten me; rendering comparisons with the Hexar AF lens would be especially useful. If you had one but sold it, please tell me why. Depending on the responses, I may need to be talked down later, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
ForestCap
Well-known
search
コニカ 50MM F2.4
or
ヘキサノン 50MM F2.4
if you haven't done it. Probably you will get some extra results.
https://www.mapcamera.com/item/3000009303635
http://camerafan.jp/i.php?i=33318704
http://forum.xitek.com/thread-736865-1-1-1.html (lots of rumbling but some nice pictures as well)
It's said to be a 6 elements in 4 groups design. 0.8m close focus distance.
コニカ 50MM F2.4
or
ヘキサノン 50MM F2.4
if you haven't done it. Probably you will get some extra results.
https://www.mapcamera.com/item/3000009303635
http://camerafan.jp/i.php?i=33318704
http://forum.xitek.com/thread-736865-1-1-1.html (lots of rumbling but some nice pictures as well)
It's said to be a 6 elements in 4 groups design. 0.8m close focus distance.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Thanks for the links. The last one does have some nice photos, which only makes my obsession stronger.
I'm surprised there aren't more comments from users here - it usually seems like, no matter how obscure the lens, there are a few RFF people who have one.
I'm surprised there aren't more comments from users here - it usually seems like, no matter how obscure the lens, there are a few RFF people who have one.
shawn
Veteran
The 50 3.5 is also a very nice lens. Can't say how it compares to the 2.4 though.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162494
The 3.5 does wobble until it is extended and locked into place.
Shawn
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162494
The 3.5 does wobble until it is extended and locked into place.
Shawn
02Pilot
Malcontent
The 50/3.5 is actually where I started browsing LTM Konica lenses. That search led me to the 50/2.4. I'm sure the 3.5 is nice, and I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up with one at some point, but right now I have a 50/3.5 Elmar and a 50/3.5 Canon, so I fear it might be lost in the crowd.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
The wobble is overblown. It comes from the helicoid, not the optical unit It's not as bad as Zeiss or even Canon LTM. It is also fixable (DAG adjusted mine); it's just that things get loose after 22 years. If you see how slim the helicoid is, it's not hard to see that there is plenty of leverage to loosen stuff up.
The lens is sharp full stop. I'd say a bit hotter out of the gate than the 50/2 M-Hexanon. It does exhibit a small amount of focus shift but nothing like the ZM Sonnar.
Focusing is smooth with the tab. The aperture action is like a ball detent, not a spring detent (so like the aperture ring on a Leica lens).
It is very nicely finished, and the chrome is a good match for old rangefinder chrome, but against an M240 it has notably more of a warm nickel tone. The engraving is very fine - so if you could analogize normal Leica or Konica M engraving to be with a 0.7mm pen, this is a 0.3. Still the Konica font.
Oh yes. The collapsing action doesn't harm an M240. Shouldn't be an issue for a Leica film M (other than maybe the CL). It doesn't collapse into a Canon P. It doesn't actually collapse that much; I get the sense this was more for aesthetics than necessity.
Plus you can code it as a 50 Summarit.
Dante
The lens is sharp full stop. I'd say a bit hotter out of the gate than the 50/2 M-Hexanon. It does exhibit a small amount of focus shift but nothing like the ZM Sonnar.
Focusing is smooth with the tab. The aperture action is like a ball detent, not a spring detent (so like the aperture ring on a Leica lens).
It is very nicely finished, and the chrome is a good match for old rangefinder chrome, but against an M240 it has notably more of a warm nickel tone. The engraving is very fine - so if you could analogize normal Leica or Konica M engraving to be with a 0.7mm pen, this is a 0.3. Still the Konica font.
Oh yes. The collapsing action doesn't harm an M240. Shouldn't be an issue for a Leica film M (other than maybe the CL). It doesn't collapse into a Canon P. It doesn't actually collapse that much; I get the sense this was more for aesthetics than necessity.
Plus you can code it as a 50 Summarit.
Dante
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Had one. Results were great but I had the same beef with it that I had with the 35mm 1.7 LTM Ultron and the 50mm 1.5 Nokton LTM: It's an LTM lens but the barrel diameter is very becoming of an M Leica, while it 'hangs over' on a Barnack lens mount...
Irritated the h*ll out of me and eventually I sold it.
The 35mm 2.0 Hexanon LTM otoh is a perfect fit on a Barnack 😉
Irritated the h*ll out of me and eventually I sold it.
The 35mm 2.0 Hexanon LTM otoh is a perfect fit on a Barnack 😉
Last edited:
02Pilot
Malcontent
Just so I'm clear, you mean the base of the lens where it contacts the body actually overhangs the baseplate on a Barnack? That would be most irritating, and might be a deal-breaker.
If I want to push up the cost scale to the 35 I'll have to sell off another lens or two, or the Hexar AF...ugh.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Its a really interesting lens. Add me to the list of 'had but sold'.
I loved the results I got with it and the fast, smooth focus. It had the slight bit of wobble others reported but it didn't seem to cause any image issues. I used it on both an ltm body and on an M.
My interest in the lens was primarily about its compactness, fast focus and ergonomics. In the end, I switched to the Elmar-M as it was a bit smaller collapsed and just as fast to focus. At times I prefer the rendering of the 50/2.4 but the Elmar ticked more boxes for me.
I loved the results I got with it and the fast, smooth focus. It had the slight bit of wobble others reported but it didn't seem to cause any image issues. I used it on both an ltm body and on an M.
My interest in the lens was primarily about its compactness, fast focus and ergonomics. In the end, I switched to the Elmar-M as it was a bit smaller collapsed and just as fast to focus. At times I prefer the rendering of the 50/2.4 but the Elmar ticked more boxes for me.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice images Brian^^^
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Correct. And in my mind, a lens that fits better on an M Leica than it does on a Barnack defeats the necessity of a screw mount completely.
Only image I quickly could find shows it on a Canon camera, but it proves the point:
The base is bigger than the mount of the camera.
Maybe not as much as the Ultron, but still.
Both images off the net, not mine
02Pilot
Malcontent
Correct. And in my mind, a lens that fits better on an M Leica than it does on a Barnack defeats the necessity of a screw mount completely.
Only image I quickly could find shows it on a Canon camera, but it proves the point:
The base is bigger than the mount of the camera.
Yeah, this is a little disproportionate. I was thinking it might be a good match for my IIIg, but this is making me reconsider. If the 35/2 is a better fit that may move up the list, even though I'm more of a natural 50 shooter. Thanks.
Similar threads
