How "good" is the Hexanon 50mm/2?

<p>This lens seems to have its fans,and I wonder if users of such a lens could share with us how they view the Hexanon relative to, say, a 50mm/2 Summicron of similar age.<br>

While discussing the Hexanon and the Summicron here,it wouldbe great if you could tell us why you chose your specific modern 50mm lens over other choices.</p>

<p>Raid</p>

<p>I guess, this must be old news then. I thought that there still is room for such a thread here.</p>

<p>Hi Raid. I don't think the Hexanon 50mm f2 is very common. I had to wait patiently a couple of years before I found one in the condition I liked. It is a good lens, comparable to the Type 4 Summicron in most respects. I wanted one because I have the 28mm f2.8 Hexanon-M and the build quality of the Hexanons is excellent. The focus action and the aperture click-stops of the 28mm and 50mm Hexanons feel very nice in use. The 50mm f2 Hexanon-M may be a bit more resistant to flare than the Summicrons, but in most situations they are good substitutes.</p>

<p>I posted a question about the 50mm f2 Hexanon-M a few days ago and Alan Clayton was kind enough to post its formula. Similar to the Type 4 Cron, but not the same.</p>

<p>I don't know how many of these 50mm f2's Konica made, but I suspect there are not too many around. Hence not a lot of experience with them.</p>

<p>For critical work, I've moved on to the 50mm Lux Asph because of its outstanding sharpness and performance. I go to other 50's when I want a specific signature, and then I am very partial to older '50's-50's as I call them ... The pre-aspherical Lux has a very different OOF than the Asph (which has its own, two-dimensional, flat field look), the Canon 50mm f1.2 has a distinctive look, as does the Canon 50mm f1.4 which makes shots look particularly 3-dimensional. The 5cm f1.4 Nikkor has the roundest diaphragm for background highlights I've ever seen. And now and then, I "walk the dog", that is, take out the Canon 50mm f0.95.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Frederick,<br>

I share with you my liking of some 50mm lenses for certain applications and other 50mm lenses for certain "sigantures", as you call it.<br>

I was debating for a few days whether to buy a Hexanon 50/2 or a Pentax Limited 43mm 1.9. In the end, and knowing that both lenses are most likely great, I bought the 43mm lens.<br>

I do not own a Summilux, so I can only learn from your description above.<br>

I like the Canon 50/1.4 and the old version Elmar 50/2.8 for a "3D look". That's how I see the resulting images from these two lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most of the images that I shot on film and in my photo.net gallery were made with the Hexanon 50 F 2.0. I wouldn't know how it would compare to a Summicron 50mm F 2.0 since I never used that or any other Leica lens. But the reason why I chose the Konica over the Leica was simply the difference in price, and that I couldn't imagine the Leica having so much of a significant difference in the actual outcome of how I would make photographs with it compared to the Hexanon. I still haven't used a 35 on the mp, but if I'm going to, it would probably be a Zeiss...</p>

<p>The Hexanon 50mm/2 typically goes for $400 (US). How can anyone go wrong with such a fine lens?</p>

<p>I paid $575 for the Pentax 43mm 1.9 LTM. If I were to sell the 43mm lens one day, I may get a Konica 50/2.</p>

<p>Just get the hexanon in addition to the pentax :)</p>

<p>David,<br>

I have done worse in the past than what you are suggesting I should do! I always wanted a modern lens to complement my vintage 50mm lenses.</p>

<p>Raid, if you want "modern", get the 50mm Lux Asph. It's hard to get more modern than that :-)</p>

<p>Maybe it is good that no 50mm lens is "perfect" for all situations or else we would be using only one perfect lens and throw away all the other interesting but slightly imperfect lenses.<br>

The ASPH Lux may be a super lens, but it also has a super price.</p>

<p>I recently picked up a nice late production 50mm F2 Nikkor in LTM.....images are so nice I'm considering taking leave of the two collabsible Summicrons I have, a "9.5" in M version and a "8" LTM. I have not used my 50mm Summilux (pre-ASPH) in months since I reaquainted myself with the LTM 50mm Nikkor F1.4 (a "Tokyo" version). The two Nikkors excel in black and white and their color profiles are very appealing to my tastes. I feel that unless I would have a 50mm ASPH Summilux for clinical available light shooting wide open (now I use a 35mm Summilux ASPH for those types of shots) the 50mm Summilux (Pre-ASPH) doesn't offer significantly more than the Nikkors of 50 some years ago.</p>

 

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>The Nikkor 50/2 is a Sonnar, and it a wonderful lens. I don't have the Nikkor 50/1.4. My 50/2 is a Tokyo version, but the Tokyo designation did not alter the lens designs. Another wonderful lens is the Canon 50mm/1.5.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Based on rather infrequent use I'd say that my late version Summicron is a little sharper up to f4, but beyond that I don't notice any significant differences compared to the Hexanon. Other image characteristics (o.o.f./bokeh rendition) are quite similar - I'd need to look more closely at my photos to be really certain - if I can tell images apart.</p>

<p>In comparison, my (Pentax-fit) 43mm f1.9 LE is detectably softer than the both Hex. & 'Cron up to f4, beyond which - again - differences become quite minor. I feel the full aperture o.o.f, areas of the Pentax are a little 'rougher' than the Hex & 'Cron. but settle down at c.f2.8~4.</p>

<p>That said, I haven't done any direct comparisons, since all three are excellent modern lenses, especially from f4 onwards ... I mainly use 28/35mm lenses and wider.</p>