Krosya
Konicaze
While there are many ways to answer this question, I came across some data that gives some idea of MTF tests. It includes other brands as well, but since I'm interested in Konica and Leica - this is where I thought I'd post it. Anyway, here is a link - judge for yourselves:
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/bestcameralensbrand.html
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/bestcameralensbrand.html
pvdhaar
Peter
mfogiel
Veteran
These tests are not particularly fresh nor well executed, and you will find more sites with updated tests on recent lenses if you want. The point anyway, is that in real use some lenses deliver better images than others. For example, one of the sharpest lenses in these tests, the Elmarit 90/2.8, is a lens I find of little use for the type of photography i want to do with this FL, so as a result, I get much better pictures with my SLR 85 Planar. What would be nice to know ( and see in pictures), is WHY you think Konica lenses are so good. I want to provoke you, and post an image, I find illustrates well what a good lens can deliver. Since I am very partial to Zeiss lenses, this one will be from Leica, to avoid getting flamed for my blind brand faith:
DR Summicron 50 on Tri X:
DR Summicron 50 on Tri X:
amateriat
We're all light!
There are impressive MTF charts on all the M-Hexanon lenses. A fair amount of ink and electrons have been expended on these lenses' virtues. Dante Stella's writings were just the tiny extra push I needed to ditch my entire AF SLR system in early 2002 for a Hexar RF-based system.
Talk, of course, is cheap. Good camera gear, generally speaking, isn't. I'll just say that I've seen nothing in my results with the three M-Hex lenses I have (28 f/2.8, 50 f/2, 90 f/2.8) that tells me they are lacking in any important way. Mechanically sound, optically wonderful, at practically any aperture. The fact that they are mentioned in the same breath as Leica's own excellent glass should be an indicator: it's not a matter of which is "better." It's the fact that people are more or less splitting hairs. Which means you can buy one or the other, and you'll be fine.
I'd say that's vindication enough.
- Barrett
Talk, of course, is cheap. Good camera gear, generally speaking, isn't. I'll just say that I've seen nothing in my results with the three M-Hex lenses I have (28 f/2.8, 50 f/2, 90 f/2.8) that tells me they are lacking in any important way. Mechanically sound, optically wonderful, at practically any aperture. The fact that they are mentioned in the same breath as Leica's own excellent glass should be an indicator: it's not a matter of which is "better." It's the fact that people are more or less splitting hairs. Which means you can buy one or the other, and you'll be fine.
I'd say that's vindication enough.
- Barrett
amateriat
We're all light!
And, in this instance, a picture on the Internet is worth quite a bit less than a thousand words, but sometimes you can glean a hint:
Night Herald, 2004
...but only a hint.
- Barrett
Night Herald, 2004
...but only a hint.
- Barrett
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Indeed. I can take a photo I like with...
...an M-Hexanon lens:
...or a Leica lens:
...or a CV lens:
Much disparaged though they can be in these parts, I even take photos I like with a Canon digital (whisper it) SLR with honkin' big white telephoto lens:
...Mike
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, you can look up my many posts in Konica section here on RFF with my examples from Hexanons to see why I like them so much. But I let even better photographers speak out - check out these two:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hexanon&w=62413635@N00
and
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hexanon&w=76099985@N00
I do understand that there are many good lenses out there, but I just wanted to show that Hexanons are as good as the best of them...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Shot with a Titanium Edition Hexar AF, with the famous 35mm 2.0 lens:
Straight out of the camera, only color corrected. No dustbusting done, even.
I love the way the dog is isolated from the background, and the reflections in her eyes.
Sold the Hexar AF, but a manual L-Hexanon 35mm 2.0 (not UC-Hexanon!) is underway from Tokyo, yay!
Straight out of the camera, only color corrected. No dustbusting done, even.
I love the way the dog is isolated from the background, and the reflections in her eyes.
Sold the Hexar AF, but a manual L-Hexanon 35mm 2.0 (not UC-Hexanon!) is underway from Tokyo, yay!
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
...someting you and I already know, Krosya!
But, I get its a bit of a dual feeling with you as well. I always feel I should point out the Hexanons when lenses are suggested and (yet again!) nobody mentions a Hexanon as a possible choice, while on the other hand knowing and shooting these brilliant lenses yourself should suffice.
Strange, maybe it takes a type of shooter with a specific mindset to shoot Hexanons?
maddoc
... likes film again.
.... with a specific mindset to shoot Hexanons?
Count me in !!
The 50mm M-Hexanon became one of my favorite lenses.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Perhaps someone who appreciates a really good lens that is unusually well-priced. I know some have said they don't have "snob value". That confuses me: perhaps because I'm a Hexanon snob!Strange, maybe it takes a type of shooter with a specific mindset to shoot Hexanons?
...Mike
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Count me in !!
...
...Which says a lot, coming from a man who shoots a Noctilux!
No interest in the Hexar Limited kit I'm selling on RFF I suppose? Any friends over there that might be interested? It's about time it went, being the most affordable set on the net
I love the B&W shot, have only recently discovered the M-Hex 50 for B&W and its impressive (again).
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
To me, the M-Hex 50 is a very well-behaved in every circumstance I've thrown at it, yet renders nicely without seeming "harsh" or "clinical". I find my other M-Hexanon lenses (the 28 and 35) are similarly well-behaved. The UC Hexanon 35 I have is quite different, but has its own very admirable characteristics. I'm well happy with my Hexanons
...Mike
alan davus
Well-known
Well the Shorter Oxford defines a snob as a person of low breeding with pretensions of belonging to the upper classes. So I never claim to be a snob (in this case either Leica or Hex) but I've met plenty of people who are happy to declare themselves as snobs and are most definitely that. I'm more then happy with my five Hex's, the M 28, 50 and 90's, the 35UC and the 50 2.4 collapsible though would love to get the dual.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I can see how it might: it seems awfully, well, English. Here in the antipodes, "breeding" is something done only to develop the bloodlines of livestock and we shouldn't have much truck with "upper classes" :angel:
...Mike
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
...Which says a lot, coming from a man who shoots a Noctilux!
No interest in the Hexar Limited kit I'm selling on RFF I suppose? Any friends over there that might be interested? It's about time it went, being the most affordable set on the net
I love the B&W shot, have only recently discovered the M-Hex 50 for B&W and its impressive (again).
Well, I'd love to have the Hex 50/1.2, but dont need to set - I have a couple of Hexars already. So, I'm hoping to find just the lens for a good price (none on ebay currently are at what I consider a good price, though). So, I'll just keep looking.
ferider
Veteran
Perhaps someone who appreciates a really good lens that is unusually well-priced. I know some have said they don't have "snob value". That confuses me: perhaps because I'm a Hexanon snob!
...Mike
I've got news for you guys:
when comparing to used Leica lenses, the Hexanons are not "well-priced", at least not anymore. > US 500 (the last one in the classifieds) for a 50/2 is not cheap at all. If you want bang for the buck, try a good copy of a Canon 50/1.4 LTM which runs circles around both Hexanon and Summicron, at least at f1.4
My last 50/2 Summicron copy cost me US 50 (an OM Zuiko 50/1.8). The ZM Planar usually runs around US 500 as well. The last good v4 28 Elmarit I saw cost < US 900 on ebay, just about 20% or so more than one pays for a clean Hex 28/2.8 these days. And you have to be well off and/or very dedicated to shell out US 1200 for a UC Hex 35/2.That being said, I used 50/2 and 90/2.8 M-Hex, and (a) found the built quality very good, and (b) the 90/2.8 quite special and beautiful in terms of signature - as Ernostar coming closest to the Hasselblad teles that I know (150/4 on 6x6). The 50/2 for me felt like "just another 50" ... Nothing special and comparing it to the Summicron, a design from the 70s, doesn't help either ....
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Yikes! I think I must have timed my purchase well. It's a favourite lens, but I wouldn't and simply couldn't have paid that many Aussie dollars for it, let alone US ones!...Mike
Krosya
Konicaze
I've got news for you guys:
when comparing to used Leica lenses, the Hexanons are not "well-priced", at least not anymore. > US 500 (the last one in the classifieds) for a 50/2 is not cheap at all. If you want bang for the buck, try a good copy of a Canon 50/1.4 LTM which runs circles around both Hexanon and Summicron, at least at f1.4
That being said, I used 50/2 and 90/2.8 M-Hex, and (a) found the built quality very good, and (b) the 90/2.8 quite special and beautiful in terms of signature - as Ernostar coming closest to the Hasselblad teles that I know (150/4 on 6x6). The 50/2 for me felt like "just another 50" ... Nothing special and comparing it to the Summicron, a design from the 70s, doesn't help either ....
Cheers,
Roland.
Well, Roland, I have never used Canon 50/1.4, but I'm pretty sure that newer Hexanons will outperform it at every f-stop from f2 on
Plus I'd think coatings on Hex would be better - so better flare control. And I really hate older lenses for their long focus throw. So, its a matter of preference I suppose. As far as Zuiko 50/1.8 - I wonder how well that works on Leica?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I have a Konica 21/35 Dual. I love this lens! At the moment it is with DAG having its mount modified and coded for my M8.