I own this konica and is a very warm lense, much colour deep, creamy bokeh and a lot of contrast. It is pretty sharp wide open and it is freakin sharp stoping down to f2.8 and down... For me, one of the best 50mm of all time.
I have a few konicas, 28, 50 1.4, 52 1.8 and a 135. 2.5. All are beautifully built and produce lovely images. Probably too soft for a lot of today's sharpness worshipers, but for my and many peoples tastes, they are amazing.
All are great lenses. I think the Konica gives the most cinematic look out of these. Or i'm just biased because i have one :) a little soft/hazy completely wide open but a lovely high quality lens.
I'm a Konica fan, but in this video the Konica appears to be the less sharpest wide open but w. a nice bokeh balls.The SMC Pentax is the last lens I'd choose. Just to stiff and boring, no glow. I own that lens as well btw. The Helios is not even awake in this test. It's strength lays in a different situation such as swirl etc. I think the Zeiss is the sharpest while the Minolta, sharp as well, has beautiful colours and quite is sharp at the same time. Besides the Pentax I also own an early Helios and the Canon . The Canon has its' own very special thing going on which imo is a very own kind of noise in the background and bokeh. Kind of an analog feel. However the Minolta PG 1,4 and the Konica is on my list for quite some time now. I guess I'm in a favour of purchasing the Minolta first. I already own the Konica 40mm 1,8 and the 50mm 1,7
In terms of just Bokeh, I think it's very close between the Zeiss and the Konica, with edge going to Konica for keeping the lights less "cat eye". But overall, in terms of color, sharpness, and just look, I think the Zeiss wins, with the Konica a close second, and even the Minolta, a close third. If you made a movie with any of these 3 lenses, these are here to do a beautiful job for you. Now it's up to you to do the rest, which admittedly is the hardest part.
every lens can , but mostly with the max distance out of focus ( beyond or to short focus ) . On the Nikons it will work more like a macro lens . Worth a try and you can start with cheaper ones like the konica 40mm f1.8 , nice pancake on the Nikon. P.S a adapter with glass in it can converse /correct the min. focal distance
Idk if what it is but the first, third and last Pentax images (or videos idc) had this 3D pop which made it my favourite. It wasn’t the sharpest nor had the best bokeh (imo) but something about that rendition...
I use the Konica 50mm 1.4 for 4K video because it's not as sharp/clean as my modern lenses and it works great for a cinematic look and it doesn't render peoples faces too harshly.
No. You have to use adapters with a correcting lens. I have only tried it once with a Pentax k to Nikon f- adapter and found it useless. Soft and flary, sorry...
@@stephanpaier9887 Thanks. That is I saw also when I used Olympus 50mm f1.7 with Nikon full frame. Picture is soft not sharp. On the other hand helios 58mm works fantastic with Nikon f frame with great sharpness. So, it is kind of may or may not work for all other lenses.
@@9eyes423 If you want to use lenses with many different mounts you can only use mirrorless cameras... for fullframe I have the Sony A7 (I) but fortunately with one additional adapter I can use all the lenses on my Nikon Z50 as well: it´t the Sony Nex to Nikon Z-mount adapter. I now have to adapters, if I want to I can stack up to 4 ;-) Nikon Z50 - Sony Nex to Z - Minolta MD to Nex - M42 to Minolta MD - Schneider Kreuznach to M42..... it works great ;-)
Zeeis is the worse maybe. Look the dark lines in bokech ligths and also that brigth ligth in the wood back of bottles. The very best here are Konica, Minolta and Canon.
See why Zeiss and Canon are liked by pros : they are the most contrasty of the bunch, here wide open. The Konica is way behind @1.4 : it's creamy look is percieved as a weakness today. U should go further, close 2 diaphs and look what happens. People would be surprised about how the Konica behave... they have some secret cards... Btw the K 50mm 1.7 is rated over the K 50mm 1.4 : this one is only praised for it's bokeh, exactly as u do.
+WhichLens thank you for your insight & knowledge ~ the little 21mm f3.5 Olympus has served me well recently since I could not get a hold of the 21mm Loxia in time for a trip (amazing, as it was promised in Jan... then Feb & now I see it's due in March!).
I can vouch for the Konica 1.7 - it's a lovely lens ( even wide open ) and to my eyes gives better bokeh than the 1.4...also small and light - a nice combo with my X-T20....
@@cjewe1z well five years ago it was as I said above and it cost me $30 plus shipping ( maybe $15 ? ) from Japan ...not everything is great at 1.4 or 1.2 -you have a portrait where 1 eyelash is in focus and that's it -not really the greatest look
@@MrKikoboy Is the 1.4 equal to the 1.7 when stopped down? I have mostly 1.4s, so I like all my lenses to be 1.4, but I will make allowances if 1.7/1.8/1.9/2 are better options.
Not a valid test all cameras should have been set at the same f stop The lenses with a f 1.4 have a narrower depth of field which makes the honey boltle out of focus where the f 1.8&2 are in focus
Comparisons like this prove almost nothing. It would be like comparing four cars by sitting in the drivers seat and playing with the controls with the engine turned off. Having used all of these lenses extensively, I would suggest that Pentax and Konica lenses lag behind performance wise, though each generation of the Takumars was better than the one before. K mount versions were the best of a mediocre series. The Canon f1.4 SSC is very similar to my Zeiss Planar, and both are very good. The Planar is far better built and sometimes looks to be slightly better corrected for some abberations. The SSC however, has a flatter plane of focus and holds better resolution in the far corners.
Thank you for your insight. This review made me regret buying several FD lenses when i saw the other lenses beautiful warmer colors, but checking the video again I realised only the FD lens didn't have sunlight in the shot. The other lenses had the sunlight bouncing in the orange table, giving a much more beautiful warmer background. How do you compare FD color with the others in your tests?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
My top 3 in terms of bokeh : rokkor, helios, hexanon. Thanks for the video
I own this konica and is a very warm lense, much colour deep, creamy bokeh and a lot of contrast. It is pretty sharp wide open and it is freakin sharp stoping down to f2.8 and down... For me, one of the best 50mm of all time.
Appreciate your comments - I'll should re-examine this lens when not mounted on this slider! too much tech distracting me!
Conrad Olivier Just go outside. Fight with the sun, and not only with sharpness and leds bokeh. I mean, do a deeper review, it really woth it.
I took it to Uganda and the results are definitely beautiful outside - a bit of a challenge to do hand helds at 1.4, but I went for it anyway.
I have a few konicas, 28, 50 1.4, 52 1.8 and a 135. 2.5. All are beautifully built and produce lovely images. Probably too soft for a lot of today's sharpness worshipers, but for my and many peoples tastes, they are amazing.
All are great lenses. I think the Konica gives the most cinematic look out of these. Or i'm just biased because i have one :) a little soft/hazy completely wide open but a lovely high quality lens.
I'm a Konica fan, but in this video the Konica appears to be the less sharpest wide open but w. a nice bokeh balls.The SMC Pentax is the last lens I'd choose. Just to stiff and boring, no glow. I own that lens as well btw. The Helios is not even awake in this test. It's strength lays in a different situation such as swirl etc. I think the Zeiss is the sharpest while the Minolta, sharp as well, has beautiful colours and quite is sharp at the same time. Besides the Pentax I also own an early Helios and the Canon . The Canon has its' own very special thing going on which imo is a very own kind of noise in the background and bokeh. Kind of an analog feel. However the Minolta PG 1,4 and the Konica is on my list for quite some time now. I guess I'm in a favour of purchasing the Minolta first. I already own the Konica 40mm 1,8 and the 50mm 1,7
I've no real interest in video but I still found this very informative in relation to still photography.
Nicely shot and well done
Konica hands down
Rokkor PG or PF? 😀
In terms of just Bokeh, I think it's very close between the Zeiss and the Konica, with edge going to Konica for keeping the lights less "cat eye". But overall, in terms of color, sharpness, and just look, I think the Zeiss wins, with the Konica a close second, and even the Minolta, a close third. If you made a movie with any of these 3 lenses, these are here to do a beautiful job for you. Now it's up to you to do the rest, which admittedly is the hardest part.
Is that konica lens posible to use on nikon d90 body with adapter?
every lens can , but mostly with the max distance out of focus ( beyond or to short focus ) . On the Nikons it will work more like a macro lens . Worth a try and you can start with cheaper ones like the konica 40mm f1.8 , nice pancake on the Nikon. P.S a adapter with glass in it can converse /correct the min. focal distance
Idk if what it is but the first, third and last Pentax images (or videos idc) had this 3D pop which made it my favourite. It wasn’t the sharpest nor had the best bokeh (imo) but something about that rendition...
I use the Konica 50mm 1.4 for 4K video because it's not as sharp/clean as my modern lenses and it works great for a cinematic look and it doesn't render peoples faces too harshly.
Do those lenses work with Nikon full frame camera properly?
No. You have to use adapters with a correcting lens. I have only tried it once with a Pentax k to Nikon f- adapter and found it useless. Soft and flary, sorry...
@@stephanpaier9887 Thanks. That is I saw also when I used Olympus 50mm f1.7 with Nikon full frame. Picture is soft not sharp. On the other hand helios 58mm works fantastic with Nikon f frame with great sharpness. So, it is kind of may or may not work for all other lenses.
@@9eyes423 If you want to use lenses with many different mounts you can only use mirrorless cameras... for fullframe I have the Sony A7 (I) but fortunately with one additional adapter I can use all the lenses on my Nikon Z50 as well: it´t the Sony Nex to Nikon Z-mount adapter. I now have to adapters, if I want to I can stack up to 4 ;-)
Nikon Z50 - Sony Nex to Z - Minolta MD to Nex - M42 to Minolta MD - Schneider Kreuznach to M42..... it works great ;-)
Please remake this in 4K
Helios costs up to 20 bucks. Take this in fact.
Nice job👍
Zeeis is the worse maybe. Look the dark lines in bokech ligths and also that brigth ligth in the wood back of bottles. The very best here are Konica, Minolta and Canon.
Konica !!!! minolta 2nd ; pentax and then at last canon!
all are the same , but Canon and Pentax are bold color and CZ is sharper
See why Zeiss and Canon are liked by pros : they are the most contrasty of the bunch, here wide open. The Konica is way behind @1.4 : it's creamy look is percieved as a weakness today. U should go further, close 2 diaphs and look what happens. People would be surprised about how the Konica behave... they have some secret cards... Btw the K 50mm 1.7 is rated over the K 50mm 1.4 : this one is only praised for it's bokeh, exactly as u do.
+WhichLens thank you for your insight & knowledge ~ the little 21mm f3.5 Olympus has served me well recently since I could not get a hold of the 21mm Loxia in time for a trip (amazing, as it was promised in Jan... then Feb & now I see it's due in March!).
I can vouch for the Konica 1.7 - it's a lovely lens ( even wide open ) and to my eyes gives better bokeh than the 1.4...also small and light - a nice combo with my X-T20....
@@MrKikoboy What makes the Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7 better than the 1.4?
@@cjewe1z well five years ago it was as I said above and it cost me $30 plus shipping ( maybe $15 ? ) from Japan ...not everything is great at 1.4 or 1.2 -you have a portrait where 1 eyelash is in focus and that's it -not really the greatest look
@@MrKikoboy Is the 1.4 equal to the 1.7 when stopped down? I have mostly 1.4s, so I like all my lenses to be 1.4, but I will make allowances if 1.7/1.8/1.9/2 are better options.
Not a valid test all cameras should have been set at the same f stop
The lenses with a f 1.4 have a narrower depth of field which makes the honey boltle out of focus where the f 1.8&2 are in focus
point taken - I think I was angling for Boken at the expense of foreground focus to some extent
Comparisons like this prove almost nothing. It would be like comparing four cars by sitting in the drivers seat and playing with the controls with the engine turned off. Having used all of these lenses extensively, I would suggest that Pentax and Konica lenses lag behind performance wise, though each generation of the Takumars was better than the one before. K mount versions were the best of a mediocre series. The Canon f1.4 SSC is very similar to my Zeiss Planar, and both are very good. The Planar is far better built and sometimes looks to be slightly better corrected for some abberations. The SSC however, has a flatter plane of focus and holds better resolution in the far corners.
Thank you for your insight. This review made me regret buying several FD lenses when i saw the other lenses beautiful warmer colors, but checking the video again I realised only the FD lens didn't have sunlight in the shot. The other lenses had the sunlight bouncing in the orange table, giving a much more beautiful warmer background.
How do you compare FD color with the others in your tests?
@@yhangr Are you sure that the Canon lens eliminated that light? Surely, a lens can't just get rid of a light source.
What's wrong. You too cheap to afford a Pentax 50mm f1.4?