The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Konica glass on M43? Samples?

lattiboy

New member
Hi all,

I've just ebayed the hell out of some Konica glass and am pretty psyched to try it out. Specifically I've gotten the 40mm f/1.8 (somehow I ended up with THREE COPIES!), the 135mm f/2.5, the 50mm f/1.4, and a Tamron 135mm f/2.5 (no idea why I got this).

I'd love a 57mm f/1.2, but the whole point of using old glass (to me) is saving boatloads of cash.
 

Diane B

New member
Bought this one for $30 I think at FM. There wasn't an adaptor when I got it, so had someone convert to 4/3rds for me and I use MA-1 adaptor.







I don't have any other Konicas--primarily FD glass.

Diane
 

Brian Mosley

New member
I've been collecting Hexanon lenses for a while - I have some examples with my Olympus E-400 here.

The 135mm f2.5 is my favourite long lens with the Pen - stabilisation helps at this 270mm EFL.

Cheers

Brian
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have the 40/1.8 too. A delightful lens.


Panasonic G1 + Konica 40mm f/1.8
ISO 400 @ f/2.8 @ 1/60 second

My last photo of 2009.
 

lattiboy

New member
Thanks Brian and Godfrey! I've been shooting film with the KS-1, but I'm very excited to try this stuff out on M43 once that long ship from China gets here with the adapter.

I love the GF-1, but I'm pretty jealous of the IBIS on the Oly cams. If somebody would just combine the best features of the Oly and the Panny we'd all be happy :)
 

lattiboy

New member
Brian, do you find the 57mm f/1.2 to be significantly better (bokeh, color, sharpness) than the 40mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4? I have the latter two lenses, but I've always wanted a f/1.2 lens.

Also, do you find it logical to own both the 50mm and the 40mm? They seem quite close in performance....
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks Brian and Godfrey! I've been shooting film with the KS-1, but I'm very excited to try this stuff out on M43 once that long ship from China gets here with the adapter.

I love the GF-1, but I'm pretty jealous of the IBIS on the Oly cams. If somebody would just combine the best features of the Oly and the Panny we'd all be happy :)
lol... I'm quite happy with the equipment I have. ;-)
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Yes, the 57mm f1.2 is superb (some samples here, and here with the E-P1)

The Hexanon 57mm f1.4 is easier to find, cheaper and almost as good bokeh.

I have a couple of 50's and also the 40... it just depends on the condition of your copy of each lens. If you have a good sample, it's worth keeping. The 40mm f1.8 can give some weird bokeh at certain f-stops, due to the shape of the aperture blades as they close.

Cheers

Brian
 
T

thearne3

Guest
I hope this is an appropriate question for this thread...

There are two ways the Hexanon lenses can be used with m4/3:

1. Convert to 4/3, then use 4/3 to m4/3 adapter. At least one recommendation for such modification involves using a smaller light baffle, which is said to increase contrast by decreasing stray light from the needlessly large light circle produced by any FF legacy lens. An example is here: http://gfsnt.no/hexanon/
2. Use unmodified lens and a Konica to m4/3 adapter.

My questions: has anyone compared 1 and 2? How about 1 with and without baffle?

Having no 4/3 bodies, I have taken the easy way, 2, but usually have to bump contrast in PP - better to do it at the lens, right?

Best,
Tom
 

photoSmart42

New member
I hope this is an appropriate question for this thread...

There are three ways the Hexanon lenses can be used with m4/3:

1. Convert to 4/3, then use 4/3 to m4/3 adapter. At least one recommendation for such modification involves using a smaller light baffle, which is said to increase contrast by decreasing stray light from the needlessly large light circle produced by any FF legacy lens. An example is here: http://gfsnt.no/hexanon/
2. Use unmodified lens and a Konica to m4/3 adapter.
3. Use Konica lenses made for Leica RF cameras using a LTM->M->m4/3 adapter.
Added for emphasis :). There are a few Konica Hexanon lenses made for Leica systems that seem quite nice from photos I've run across.
 
T

thearne3

Guest
Added for emphasis :). There are a few Konica Hexanon lenses made for Leica systems that seem quite nice from photos I've run across.
Good point...but if the OP is like me, he might be put off by the the $X000 price tags for the Leica mount lenses! :shocked:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I hope this is an appropriate question for this thread...

There are two ways the Hexanon lenses can be used with m4/3:

1. Convert to 4/3, then use 4/3 to m4/3 adapter. At least one recommendation for such modification involves using a smaller light baffle, which is said to increase contrast by decreasing stray light from the needlessly large light circle produced by any FF legacy lens. An example is here: http://gfsnt.no/hexanon/
2. Use unmodified lens and a Konica to m4/3 adapter.

My questions: has anyone compared 1 and 2? How about 1 with and without baffle?

Having no 4/3 bodies, I have taken the easy way, 2, but usually have to bump contrast in PP - better to do it at the lens, right?

Best,
Tom
I have found no difference in contrast between using a sufficiently deep lens hood and using a rear-mounted light baffle. Even a 40mm lens on FourThirds requires a substantial, deep hood for effective flare and stray-light reduction:





I adapted my 40/1.8 to FourThirds with the original intent of using on the L1, but I find I prefer using the L1 with FourThirds lenses only, so now I use the 40mm on the G1 with the DMW-MA1 adapter. One of these days, I'll get one of the 'dumb' FT->mFT adapters and make it permanent, free up the DMW-MA1 to use only with my FT SLR lenses.
 
T

thearne3

Guest
I have found no difference in contrast between using a sufficiently deep lens hood and using a rear-mounted light baffle. Even a 40mm lens on FourThirds requires a substantial, deep hood for effective flare and stray-light reduction:
Thanks, Godfrey. As usual, your experience is invaluable...and could save me a lot of time, if I let you! :thumbs: You make a good case for using hoods to minimize the incidence of flare, etc from the outset. I also recognize that the hood serves the additional purpose of generally protecting the lens without affecting the optics. This approach works especially well when using an adapter for multiple purposes (as you describe).

My situation is a little different. Since I am using a dumb adapter already, which is dedicated to Hexanon lenses, it seems logical to see what happens if I baffle the adapter, rather than each and every attached lens. Regardless of whether or not that helps, I still have the option of adding hoods to each lens, and can avoid the need to baffle each one.

I have procured some stiff black felt for the purpose of baffling the adapter. Any thoughts on how to set up the experiment (or even doubts about its usefulness!) welcome. I propose to insert the felt at the rear of the adapter (so as not to interfere with the intact aperture mechanism of the lenses). I will first decrease the size of the baffle hole to just before the point of vignetting. Then, using a tripod and full manual settings, take shots with and without the baffle. What would be a good way to identify 'tough' shots? Very bright scenes? Strong light in the frame/off axis?

Is this me? :deadhorse:

Best,
Tom
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
If you want to play with the baffle approach, enjoy. I did, very briefly, and realized that any baffle doing enough to counteract not having a properly efficient lens hood was going to be a custom fit per lens to minimize vignetting while also being effective. A deep hood was a better solution for me ... And as I only have a few lenses, it's not much of a burden.

All my lenses have deep, efficient hoods on them. All the time.
 
Top