What's an AFFORDABLE, legacy lens for portraits and scenery?

[Linh]

The issue is not my watch nor safety, I just don't want to buy a lens that has a brownish back element due to 40 years of thorium decay and then be forced to buy a UV lamp or expose it to sunlight for weeks. If I pay $75+ for a lens, I want it to be clear out of the box.

good luck. You'll probably find some that have minimal yellowing, but it's not going to be free of it. You also won't find one that is brown for $75... no one would buy it.

I consider the slight yellowing character =)

 

[chon]

I ended up buying a Minolta MD 50mm f1.7 in pristine condition for a whopping $10, what a steal!

 

[yordanrhapsody]

hi there, at last I bought a Konica Hexanon Ar 50 1.4

Now I need an adapter, but here in Italy they are very expensive... not less than 50€

anyway, what do you think about this lens?

 

[starlabs]

It's a solid lens. I like that it's a pancake and quite lightweight. Open wide though at f/1.4 it's softer than some other 50mm lenses. Step it down to f/2.8 though, and it sharpens up a lot.

For some, the softness can be a good thing - it gives portraits a nice mild "soft focus" art mode to the pictures.

 

[turbines]

I never tried the Hexanon 50 but the two samples of the Konica 40 f1.8 I tried were hardly all that sharp. Still the 40 seems to have a cult following. I found both my 40s to be too soft for my taste even stopped down to f2.8 and that might make it a good candidate for portraits. The Pen F 40 is much sharper but also very expensive as a result of its' prestige status. The Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 and Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 (55mm filter version) are IMHO both much better and cheaper choices. My personal favorite for portraits is the Nikon 105 f2.5. It's a bit long on MFT but also unobtrusive for candid shots. If I had to own but one legacy lens it would be the Vivitar Series 1 in either the Tokina or Komine versions. Both versions are quite cheap on ebay.

Nikon 105 example

Vivitar Series 1 example

 

[bogolisk]

I never tried the Hexanon 50 but the two samples of the Konica 40 f1.8 I tried were hardly all that sharp. Still the 40 seems to have a cult following. I found both my 40s to be too soft for my taste even stopped down to f2.8 and that might make it a good candidate for portraits. The Pen F 40 is much sharper but also very expensive as a result of its' prestige status. The Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 and Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 (55mm filter version) are IMHO both much better and cheaper choices. My personal favorite for portraits is the Nikon 105 f2.5. It's a bit long on MFT but also unobtrusive for candid shots. If I had to own but one legacy lens it would be the Vivitar Series 1 in either the Tokina or Komine versions. Both versions are quite cheap on ebay.

Nikon 105 example

Vivitar Series 1 example

ITA with you here! I, too, bought into the Konica hype but was disappointed! The Konica 1.7/50 is good but not better than the OM 1.8/50 or the Rokkor 1.7/50. What's you get is really the Konica colours! But you can also say that the OM's bokeh and the Rokkor's colours are special. The Konica 40mm is so soft wide open that it's really hard to focus! It ended up staying in the drawer most of the time because my Pen-F 38mm is sharper, much smaller and much easier to focus!

 

[dixeyk]

ITA with you here! I, too, bought into the Konica hype but was disappointed! The Konica 1.7/50 is good but not better than the OM 1.8/50 or the Rokkor 1.7/50. What's you get is really the Konica colours! But you can also say that the OM's bokeh and the Rokkor's colours are special. The Konica 40mm is so soft wide open that it's really hard to focus! It ended up staying in the drawer most of the time because my Pen-F 38mm is sharper, much smaller and much easier to focus!

I think it depends on the Konica. I have some that are really impressive and others not so much. I also think that when you are dealing with less expensive lenses (remember that the 40/1.8 was the cheap normal that shipped with the film bodies so it wasn't exactly a premium lens) you can have a good deal of variation between samples. My 40/1.8 (I've had two) have both been quite nice but not spectacular. My 50/1.4 which as a more premium lens is better built, just as sharp and while not spectacular is definitely a cut above the 40/1.8. That said, my Pen-F 40/1.4 is a lot sharper and has better bokeh than either of the Konicas but it is a much more spendy.

I agree that Konicas do have wonderful color but then again as you point out each lens has their strengths and weaknesses. IMHO, if color is the determining factor Olympus (OM and Pen-F) have by far the best color.

 

[JCD]

I recommend the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 series E: good @f/1.8, excellent @f/2.8

 

[lkgroup]

I have some Legacy lenses FS on this forum. I posted last evening with pictures. Give me a PM if any interest or Questions.

https://www.mu-43.com/f17/fs-legacy-lenses-minolta-mounts-7722/

Leo
In Washington State

 

[Orientator]

I'd recommend the OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. It's affordable (about 20-40 Euro at ebay) and the image Quality is nice. (See here for examples)

Stefan

 

[3drives]

Which is better - Minolta MD 50 MM 1.7 or Minolta rokkor-x 1.7 50mm? or both the same?

I have both but not able to tell the difference.

 

[bogolisk]

Which is better - Minolta MD 50 MM 1.7 or Minolta rokkor-x 1.7 50mm? or both the same?

I have both but not able to tell the difference.

Do you mean the MD Rokkor-X or MC Rokkor-X?

I believe the plain MD and the MD Rokkor have the exact same optical formula. The state of the lens (dust, scratches, etc.) will have more an effect on the IQ than the version of the lens.

 

[carpandean]

Which is better - Minolta MD 50 MM 1.7 or Minolta rokkor-x 1.7 50mm? or both the same?

I have both but not able to tell the difference.

Here's a good history of Minolta MC/MD lenses. It's possible that you have the latest ("plain") MD 50mm f/1.7 and second-latest MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7. It so, they are basically the same. If the latter is an MC Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7, then it's an older design.

 

[CalebPhotographer]

Craigslist is a good place to check. I got a Canon 50mm ƒ/1.4 S.S.C. for $20. Great condition and the primary lens that I use.

 

[Mellow]

I'd think hard about whether you want a 50mm or something a little shorter. Personally I find 50mm just too long for almost anything but portraits. In contrast, something in the 35-40mm range I find more useful overall.

That said, I do own a 50mm--just that I use it exclusively for portraits. And since it's used only for portraits, edge-to-edge sharpness is not really a priority, so I'm more than happy with one of the 'lesser' brands.

Just something to think about!

 

[vintageslrs]

As said by others.....there are plenty of very good legacy lenses that are reasonable and very sharp. Like the Hexanons and Canons and Rokkors and the Takumars, etc. but one might prefer a Helios...like the 44-4 because it is softer (not quite as sharp) and might be better for some portrait work. They are all pretty reasonable so go have fun!