Skip to content

Timeless beauty. The Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4

I got acquainted with this lens without intending to. Andreas Buhl, in his compendium of all things Konica, compares it somewhat unfavorably with the more modern and certainly magnificent Hexanon 50mm f/1.4. Largely because of this opinion, the 57mm f/1.4 lens was always low in my interest scale. So low that I never looked for one. Some time ago, however, I got one in a lot together with several other lenses. The Hexanon 57mm was dirty inside and out and the aperture was stuck but, like most Hexanon primes that I have come across, it was easy to take apart and clean. The whole process from a dirty lens with a stuck aperture to a fully functional lens with immaculate glass took about an hour. When I was done it was late at night. Being of the impatient denomination, however, I could not wait until the morning to try it. One of my cats was sleeping on my computer chair, on which I can get some good light from a desk lamp. So I put the lens on my Sony A7, woke up Engels and took a few shots of him with the lens wide open. Two of those shots are included in the gallery below, they are the ones of the orange cat. Of course I chimpped (who doesn’t?) and was somewhat astonished by what I thought I saw – that looked like a really good lens! Magnify the image on the LCD and zoom-in on the eyes – wow!! Was it really possible? I downloaded the raw files and did some quick-and-dirty processing on Capture One. The pictures blew me away. The remarkable sharpness on Engels’s eyes, with the lens wide open, held up under full resolution. But it was not just that – the soft, fluffy bokeh!! The seamless transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. The almost complete lack of chromatic aberration. And the somewhat unique, warm and old-fashioned color rendition. Wow indeed.

The following morning I got one of my other cats – the grey-brown tabby with a pink collar –  to pose for some outdoor shots. I was still impressed. Could it be possible that I got a particularly good example, one from the top 1%? At this point I remembered to consult with the other Konica encyclopedia, and found out that Jean-Jacques Granas states that “It performs extremely well, but in other ways than the 50/1.4”. I could immediately relate to this – my thoughts exactly. I was still curious about whether my particular lens was special in some way, however. I searched ebay and found another dirty one with a stuck aperture for a great price. Another hour or so of cleaning and the lens looked virtually new. Then, over the last couple of weeks, I spent some time with it wandering around peak autumn colors close to home. Some of the pictures that I got are shown in the gallery that accompanies this post – all shot RAW with a Sony A7 and processed in Capture One. The results were, in my view, as outstanding as those obtained from the first lens. Of course, two examples do not make for meaningful statistics any more than one, and both lenses are of the same vintage, all-black all-metal, produced between 1970-73. But I have a strong suspicion, reinforced by Jean-Jacques somewhat laconic opinion, that my two lenses are in no way special. That this gallery indeed showcases what the 57mm f/1.4 Hexanon is all about.

So, is the 57mm lens better or worse than its younger 50mm sibling? I don’t know, I think that it depends on what you are looking for. As far as I can tell they are comparably sharp. Perhaps the 57mm is a bit less “harsh” – more like the 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko or – dare I say it? – the 50mm Summilux. The bokeh of the 57mm lens is, to my eye, more pleasant than the somewhat wild bokeh of the 50mm. It has a soothing “vintage look” that is missing from the newer lens. The colors are not as vibrant as those of the more modern lens. If I had to choose a word to describe the color rendition of the 57mm Hexanon it would be dignified, or perhaps elegant. I love the 50mm Hexanon, but if I had to keep only one I would choose the 57mm, without a second’s hesitation. If you are after a lens capable of trademark Hexanon pyrotechnic rendition, then you should choose the 50mm f/1.4. If, on the other hand, you are after a satisfying classic look, then perhaps the 57mm f/1.4 is the best choice. Either way you can’t go wrong. But do I need two identical lenses? Not really, no matter how good they are. I put the first one, which has a little ding on the focus ring, for sale on ebay. It is still unsold as of this writing.

27 Comments

  1. Cvitan Grguricin Cvitan Grguricin

    I sometimes feel like you are reading my mind.
    I just bought this lens yesterday, can’t wait for it to be shipped.

    Great results, as always.

  2. Scott Scott

    Alberto – thanks for your review of the Konica 57mm f 1.4! I’m bidding on one now to use on my A7iii. I purchased a Konica 28mm f 3.5 a few months ago and was very pleased by the images, and the price ($26) couldn’t be beat. This will be my 5th vintage lens purchase since moving to the Sony A7iii. These old lenses are interesting to work with.

    • Hi Scott. Thank you for your visit. It is a fantastic lens, and so is the 28mm. I’m surprised that it still goes for so little money!!

  3. Terry Allen Terry Allen

    Thank you for this post, Alberto.
    You words are like your images with this lens…dignified and elegant.
    I have this lens and a D700 (I think the color rendition of the sensor may be compatible…tho with a slight saturation boost). Fotodiox say they have a mounting adapter for it. But, I notice you and so many others use the A7.
    I don’t understand why. I plan on using more vintage glass. Will it simplify my life to finally make the jump to mirrorless?
    Sincetely,
    Terry Allen, Wyoming.

    • Hi Terry,

      Thanks for your kind words! In response to your question, if you plan on using vintage glass then yes, your life will become much simpler if you switch to mirrorless. Among the various reasons why this is the case, the chief ones in my opinion are: (i) because of the short flange distance of mirrorless systems you can mount virtually any manual focus lens on any mirrorless cameras. For systems that have been around a few years (Sony, Fuji and Olympus/Panasonic) you can get adaptors for just about any lens ever made. I suspect that it won’t be long before the same is true for the new Nikon and Canon mirrorless. (ii) Focusing, both in the electronic viewfinder and in the LCD, is a dream, with the combination of the focus peaking function and image magnification. I was never able to achieve this kind of accurate focus on film SLRs.

      Having said all of this, I would also suggest that you consider only full frame mirrorless, as it is the only format that is able to do justice to the optical qualities of vintage glass. This means Sony, Nikon, Canon and, now, Panasonic (also Leica, but we are talking megabucks). I think that they are all excellent cameras, I am very happy with Sony but I suspect that one would be hard pressed to find any real differences in image quality among them. Sony does have the advantage that a full range of adapters is already available and that they have a wide selection of cameras with different capabilities, with an equally wide range of prices. But I will tell you this, the base A7 or the A7II will give you everything that you are likely to wish, for way less that $ 1,000.

      I hope this helps!

      Alberto

      • Terry Allen Terry Allen

        Thank you.
        I finally got the Sony A7, and put the Konica Hex 57mm 1.4 on it.
        Spectacular!
        The bokeh is all over the place. Sometimes subtle bubbles, and other times piles and piles of glorious bubbles.
        What a lens!

    • Dragon Dragon

      what kinds of tools do you use to take apart the lens? It is so hard for me to take apart the front.

      • A friction wrench works well. You can use a rubber stopper, or buy sets sized to common lens diameters. If the name ring is too tight you can put a few drops of lacquer thinner on the rim to loosen any old glues.

  4. Thank you for the article. I have come across this lens and considering about it as well. While I had been searching, I came across the 1.2 as well, but couldn’t find a direct comparison about these two.
    Are you able to provide input on the difference between the 57mm 1.4 and 1.2?

    Regards.

    • Thanks for your visit. I have never owned nor used the 1.2, so regrettably I cannot offer any first hand opinion on it. I do know that the 1.4 is outstanding, and I have been told that the 1.2 may be one of the best such lenses ever made. I expect that it may have a bokeh every bit as wonderful as that of the 1.4, but I doubt that it will be any sharper, or even as sharp. It is also way more expensive and I am not certain whether the difference in price is justified – but again, an opinion not based on direct experience. Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

      • From what I have seen, they render very similarly, with the 1.2 just a bit more whimsical looking. I have never owned 57/1.4. But I’ve owned the 1.2 for a short time, as well as the 50/1.4. What struck me is how your comparison, echoed mine if I only substitute my 57 for yours. 🙂
        What I will say about the 1.2 is that it is one of only two lenses that I own that are that fast. And it is a thing to behold. Coming from a Pentax origin, the majority of my glass is Pentax. The 57/1.2 (and I would imagine your 1.4 as well) fits into this wonderful place for me in the rendering that is perfectly between the Pentax K 50/1.2 and Super Takumar 55/1.8 …. it has the dreamy and wonderful tonality of the Takumar, with the detail and overall wide-open breath of the of the PK, but also the 3D pop. It’s otherworldly. But again I just have to mention that though when I bought it I intended to refresh and resell it, I can’t. It’s just magnificent. It’s easily the largest and heaviest I’ve ever owned in this focal length, but it strangely is wondeful to handle and shoot with because of that – I can literally grasp the entire lens, fitting into my palm practically, rest my finger at the end of the barrel, focusing easily … it’s action is very smooth and lighter that expected – only my Taks focus more smoothly and effortlessly. It is more than I expected, and I expected quite a lot. Try one… if you’re in love with the 1.4, try one. If nothing else, you’ll have absolutely no problem finding it a new home in short order if you don’t fall in love. 🙂

        • Thank you for the detailed comments. The 57 1.2 is on my list, and you helped push it up a few rungs. I own a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 (my only lens that fast, and a lens that I truly love) and it is interesting that one of the things that I absolutely love about this lens is the 3D pop that you describe for the Pentax and the Hexanon. Your physical description (“wonderful to handle and shoot because it is so big and heavy”) is also what I feel when I go out with the fast Rokkor. I’d love to be able some day to own all three 1.2’s….

          • Kevin Eyewanders Kevin Eyewanders

            Ahhh lovely Rokkor. I’ve not had any Rokkor glass in at least a decade. But as of this very evening I wandered back to you review here of the 57/1.4 because I picked one up (attached to a T4) for a very good price. Examining it mine is just as yours was – absolutely filthy inside and out, and the so much oil on the blades it will not stop back and forth in any way other than actuating the lever with my finger firmly. I’ll need to open it up tomorrow (and like you I’m impatient and trying not to start tonight as I know I’ll be up far too late if I do). 🙂 I’m excited to see how it compares with the 1.2 – if it’s anywhere near as close I may well release my 1.2 into the wild as I generally like using glass I’m quite happy with, yet not afraid to take with me anywhere due to the value.
            If you’ve any specific tips (if you see this in time) to offer about the 57/1.4 tear-down I’d love to hear them. I’ve gone into a number of AR lenses, but strangely, never a 57 or a even a 50.
            Cheers and best.

          • Hi Kevin,
            I’m not sure if I made it in time, but if I didn’t you’ve probably already found out for yourself. As most Hexanons it is a straightforward lens to work on. As it is an old design all the optical elements come apart easily (no glued assemblies). I don’t remember whether or not mine had any lacquer holding the lens retaining rings, but if it did a bit of lacquer thinner dispensed with an eye dropper looses it in seconds. Just stay away from disassembling the helicoid. No matter how careful I am marking the separation point I always have a hard time putting them together again.
            Good luck and let me know how it goes. I’d love to hear your impressions of this lens!

          • Kevin Eyewanders Kevin Eyewanders

            You are in time (well, sort of). 🙂
            Indeed I dove in that night. Hahaha. But, I only went in through the front and stopped short after the 3rd element. I ought to have looked up the formula beforehand but that would have been prudent and I’m only partially prudent. There indeed were small touches of lacquer, but all were so old that they were brittle and let go without so much as a tiny extra push. Surprisingly, the outermost retaining ring on my copy is plastic – mine is the latest version of the 57/1.4, but I was not expecting that. It seems sturdy enough but needed extra care not to cross-thread and ruin the threads when replacing.
            I quickly found I’d need to come from the bottom for easier access to the blades, so I buttoned it back up and haven’t yet gotten back to it. Mine has a loose focusing grip… not the focus itself but merely in the ring; I looked a bit for a retaining screw but couldn’t find any from where I was in the tear-down but that’s what it feels like it is – largely just annoying more than anything else. The focus itself is still smooth and buttery. And I too personally detest tearing down any helicoids and always avoid it whenever possible! My experience has always been the same as you mention – no matter how much care I give it’s always six-times as long as I’d imagine to get everything back in place (and one I even abandoned entirely a few years back – it’s still in a drawer in pieces hahaha).
            At any rate, I’ll have another go eventually. I will say, compared to the 57/1.2, the 1.4 is smaller than I was anticipating, really not much larger than the AR 50/1.4. Hope to get it sorted soon.

          • I don’t remember having any trouble when removing the back group. You might have to take off the black circular plate (3 small JIS screws) to make it easier, but definitely not a big deal. Let me know how it goes.
            The later 50mm f/1.4 is quite large for a 50mm lens, so I guess it’s all relative. Not sure how the 1.2 compares to the 58mm 1.2 Rokkor, which is massive, one and a half pound or so…

  5. Bill W. Bill W.

    Thanks for the great article & samples. I just picked up a Konica 57mm 1.4 lens at an estate sale for $16. The lens is pristine! I now need to order an adapter for my Sony A7rii. Which one do you use? Last year I picked up a Minolta 58mm 1.4 (for $3) and as much as I don’t like it wide open, it is an amazing portrait lens at f2! If the Konica performs anywhere near as well, I’ll be thrilled.

    • Hello Bill,
      Thanks for stopping by! You got a fantastic deal on that lens – congratulations. I have the old Rokkor 58 1.4 too (but paid more than 3 bucks for it…) and like it a lot. Have you tried B&W with it? It is as if the lens was designed with B&W in mind.
      It is hard to choose between the Rokkor and the Hexanon, they are both excellent, and for the prices you should keep both – you can never have too many old fast primes…Perhaps the Konica is a bit sharper (no surprise there) and the Rokkor has gentler out of focus rendition, but the differences may be subjective.
      Regarding adapters, I have learned the hard way that you get what you pay for, and now use only Novoflex adapters when possible – very expensive but the fit is German. Regrettably they don’t make one for Konica AR as far as I know, so you will have to go with some of the cheapo ones. I have found that among these “K&F Concepts” tend to be the ones that offer best fit. Avoid Fotodiox, they have been nothing but trouble for me, light leaks, lenses falling off, etc. And avoid 3 dollar unbranded adapters too.
      I hope this helps.

  6. Jorge Jorge

    Hi mr Patino, thank you so much for all your photo articles, I really enjoy them all. Just one question ; can I use the konica lenses adapted to my beloved Nikon Df ?
    Thank you again and God bless you.

    • Jorge, I think that yes you can, using this adapter: https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/nikon-f-adapters/products/ar-nikf-pro
      but I would strongly advise you against it. The issue is that this adapter has a glass element, perhaps to compensate for the long flange distance of the DSLR body, and this will almost certainly negate much of the quality of the Konica lens. In my view you should only use old lenses if you can adapt them with an optics-free adapter (a hollow tube of the right length and with the right connections at each end) and that is where the huge advantage of mirrorless cameras comes in.

      I hope this helps

      Alberto

      • Tom Greer Tom Greer

        I have owned two of these iconic lenses for the last 20 years. They are unique, probably produce the most beautiful images of any lens in this focal length. The lens has a personality all its own and easily compares with the Summilux for luminosity of image. I now use the 57mm on my Canon EOS M6 with amazing results.

  7. Aimar Aimar

    Hola, Alberto
    (will write in English as comment might be useful for other people too)
    First of all, thanks so much for sharing such amazing contents, both your photo related reviews/experiencies and your personal thoughts about other non-photo things are truly inspiring (can’t agree more on your statement about actual society wrong paths).
    Also, your pictures are otherwordly, such class!

    Anyway, after some time without any camera (I sold everything and went back to the basics, eyes), I’m considering buying a humble but enjoyable kit to have fun doing creative photos. As I want it to be light/small, I’ll get a aps-c camera (fuji x-m1) and one or two lenses. After reading a lot everywhere, and specially after reading all your reviews, I’m 100% conviced to go the Hexanon way.
    Now, let’s go to the point as I’m already being a mess!:
    Ideally I would prefer to go with just one lens, so I thought of the Hexanon 50mm f1.4 (later version with 8 blades and lighter body), as I love dramatic bokehs and contrast for b&w games. But after seeing the 40mm f1.8 is so light and cheap (and gorgeous performer) I thought maybe playing two cards, with the 40mm as a compact/light set-up for almost everything, and then either the 50/1.4 or 57/1.4 for wild bokeh or longer focus needs sessions.
    Within your valuable experience, would you say it’s a wise call to mix the 40/1.8 with the 57/1.4 rather than with the 50/14 for a more different mood options? Or maybe you would say with just the 50/1.4 I could have basically eberything in just one lens (which I would also appreciate for simplicity)?
    On of the biggest doubts is if the bokeh difference between this three lenses is very big or are quite similar.

    As a final thought, I never understood how so many modern reviews talk about good bokeh for the most boring ever backgrounds in which everything is smooth without any character, and critize the wild full of character stuff as the Hexanons or similar vintage lenses, which in my opinion is exactly the opposite, all these crazy bokehs are exactly what make so many vintage photos so unique.

    Man, this has been a long piece of nonsense! sorry about that

    Thanks!

    • Hello Aimar,

      Thank you for your visit and for your kind words. I fully understand your desire to go “as light as possible”. Here are my thoughts on what you ask. The 40, 50 and 57 Hexanons are all stellar, but they are quite different lenses. The 40mm f/1.8 is a thoroughly modern lens, it is above all impressively sharp and with excellent contrast, but the bokeh is not as pleasant as that of the other two lenses. The 57mm f/1.4 has a very classic rendering, in terms of that unique combination of sharpness and soft bokeh it is very hard to beat, I can think of the 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor as being perhaps similar (though not as sharp as the Konica). The 50mm f/1.4 is somewhere in the middle, though possibly closer to the 57mm in its rendition.

      The other consideration is the APS-C sensor. Given this, I would definitely go with two of these lenses. The 40mm will give you an “almost normal” equivalent focal length of 60mm. And then the 57mm would give you about 85mm, great for portraits. The 50mm is a great lens, but if you went with it you would only have 75mm equivalent focal length, not bad but somewhat constraining, I think (although bear in mind that I tend to like wide angle lenses, so this may be a personal bias).

      Anyway, this is the way I see it for what it’s worth. You really can’t go wrong with any of these lenses!

      I do have one request – when you get your Fuji camera and have had a chance to use it for a while I would really like to know your thoughts about it. I have often considered getting one, and have not done it only because I’m comfortable with Sony full frame (that wide angle bias again…), but it would not take much of a shove to get me to try one. I’d love to hear your thoughts!

      Best

      Alberto

      • Julius Jimenez Julius Jimenez

        Hi Alberto,

        I keep coming back in this blog, especially in this lens review. I got the konica 57mm 1.4 because of this review. They all say this is not the sharpest, but f2 onwards the rendering is so sweet that there is no need to lower the clarity and texture in post processing in LR. The only rival of this lens in my collection is the takumar 55 1.8, which is sharp at 1.8 and bit smaller, but when I want popping colors (+fujifilm’s classic chrome simulation) konica’s classic rendering – even at 1.4 is the cherry on top. Thanks again for this article.

        • Hello Julius,

          Thank you for your visit. I’m glad that you found this review useful. It is a very special lens – enjoy it!

          Best

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.