Just for fun I went out this evening and shot a couple of comparison shots with my Konica 50/1.4 and Olympus 45/1.8. I shot them at f2.8 and manually focused the Konica (stating the obvious there) using the LCD and used the AF on the Olympus. All these images were shot within a few minutes of one another. This was by no means scientific. None the less I did find it interesting.





I was actually surprised at the results. They're both great but I found that I prefer the Konica. The Olympus missed focus a bit. I can probably improve that focusing manually. I would have thought the AF would have been better than my 51 year old eyes on the LCD...outside. Go figure.



These are at f5.6. The Konica is still a bit sharper but more than that it has a lovely rendering of the image. Not sure what's up with the WB being off.



I think the Konica is a keeper.

Important question: how many shots did you take and were they consistent?

__________________
Olympus OM-D E-M5 and Zuiko 12-50 -- Zuiko 12/2.0 -- Pana 14/2.5 -- Leica 25/1.4 -- Zuiko 45/1.8
All in Lowepro Inverse 100 or Think Tank Retrospective 7

I actually shot with 4 lenses (the Helios 44M and the Super Takumar 50/1.4 as well). I shot 4 shots each and the shots were consistent by lens (meaning all the Helios shots looked the same, all the O45 looked the same etc.). All the shots were done over a period of 4-5 minutes at around 7:30 PM.

By no means scientific...I didn't even shoot them with the idea of posting. I was just curious how the different lenses rendered an image. When I saw the results I decided to post them for other folks to see. FWIW I was SURE the O45 would be sharpest.

Keh has this lens in stock: Konica 35mm 50 F1.4 HEXANON AE AR (55) MISSING FOCUS GRIP 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS - KEH.com
But it says "MISSING FOCUS GRIP", what does it mean, the rubber ring or there's something specific about this lens' focus?

I do like the color better on the Konica

I'm surprised at how much difference there is in the OOF on that second set of shots given that they're both shot at the same aperture. I guess that's just down to the longer focal length of the Konica.

Although I am predisposed to prefer the legacy lens over the Oly 45mm, I've got to say that I really appreciate the sharpness of the native lens in that second set of shots. That flower really pops out, even though the bokeh is not quite as "creamy".

__________________
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." ~ Orson Welles
Sarcasm is my default tone, so please consider that before taking offense to the preceding message. Criticism (no matter how harsh) is welcomed of ANY and ALL images I post.

Me too. I've always loved the color of the Hexanon 50mm f/1.4, and this is why I've always kept that lens over any other Hexanon. The ever-popular 40mm f/1.8 pancake had very flat color in comparison, whereas my Zuiko glass was much nicer. Zuiko glass is very consistent in color... they are all rich, but they can be overly warm (as you can even tell in this example with a brand new m.Zuiko... the old OM Zuikos are even more noticeable). The Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 is one of the best I've found for being rich and contrasty in color, but very neutral and cool. I love that lens to death, but I wish it fit in my kits a little better. The Zuiko 50mm/1.4 beats it in compactness and ease of operation (what a dream to use those buttery smooth raised rubber focus ring and nose-mounted aperture ring), but the Hexanon 50mm/1.4 is overall one of the optically best ever.

__________________
Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

cyclopsphoto.ca

I agree, the Konica 50/1.4 is amazingly nice (especially for the price) and beat out my OM 50/1.4 (just barely) when it came to keeping space on my shelf. I also agree that the OM 50/1.4 is really sweet, compact and just has a certain wonderfulness to the way it operates. I love the aperture ring placement. I have the f16 version with the half steps in aperture. I also put it up against my Super Takumar 50/1,4 and it was considerably sharper than that as well.

The Super Tak still wins for best feel though. It's soooo silky smooth.

I have a strange issue with my konica 50mm 1.4. It only happens when stopped down to f11 and f16. it's not a lens flare because the photo was taken in shadow and the sun was behind.