Jump to content

Have Hexanon 50mm, what will I gain by getting a summicron?


Recommended Posts

<p>Do you have any evidence for that Robert? I have had three Konica lenses -- the 50/1.2 Hexanon Limited, 35/2 M-Hexanon and 90/2.8 M-Hexanon. Each one was equal or better in performance than all but the latest asph lenses. The 50/1.2 limited was better than 50/1.4 pre-asph, and only slightly worse than the 50/1.4 asph when wide open.<br>

I tested the 35/2 versus the 35/1.4 asph and the 35/2 outperformed my 35/1.4 asph. I kept the 35/1.4 because of the extra stop, but the konica was the sharper lens. At least with my samples. The 90/2.8 is also much sharper than my tele-elmarit, though I have not compared it to the latest elmarit. Either way, if the 50/2 is anything like the other m-hexanon lenses, I would say Christian is not likely to notice any difference between the 50/2 lenses unless he goes looking for it with a microscope. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the 28mm, 50mm and 90mm Hexanon-M lenses. All are superbly made and are excellent performers, though I haven't used them to photograph lines on a page, only people in the street. I use them on an M6 and an M8. Incidentally I also have the Hexar RF a really good camera, now not made.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I keep hearing what Robert says. Presumably the microcontrast is higher on the leica - but not sure, and is it noticable...and if it is, is it allways a good thing? What I love about the hexar is the overall rendering - way better than the other normal lenses I have tried (canon fd50 1.4, summilux 1.4 25 and hasselblad 80) See my homepage (hilmersen.net) for samples of my shooting style...if that matters. <br>

I had the hexar rf - but the rangefinder-prism was chipped/crushed/broken. Loved the camera: much less rangefinder-flare than with the m6. Still have it, so if anybody can repair it, I am listening. (I live in europe/norway).<br>

Personally I don't like the 90, but the 28 and 50 are great. The 28 was sharper than leica at "PHOTODO", but alas I am not at 28mm man... </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used a collapsible Summicron and a close-focus Summicron. My present M-Hexanon 50/2 is easily better than either of those old lenses. Of course this does not tell us that it is as good as the current Summicron 50: but I'll go with Stuart in saying that only a microscope <em>may</em> show a difference. Summicron better? Perhaps, in an absolute way. But better enough to count? Doubtful.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I knew my statement would be controversial when I posted it. I almost deleted it right after I wrote it.</p>

<p>When the Konica Hexanon 50mm f2 arrived on the scene a decade ago, magazine and other official reviewers of the Konica Hexanon 50mm f2 in conjunction with the Hexar RF were very good. However, back focusing problems were reported when the Hexanon was mounted on some Leica M bodies, and this could account for the soft wide-open results found in some reviews I remember. Some even speculated at the time that there were sample variations, because user reviews ranged from amazing to disappointing. More recently, Konica Hexanon 50mm f2 use on Leica digital cameras has again resulted in some users reporting focus problems and/or overall softness compared to the Leica Summicron 50mm. I have read accounts of some people having their Leica rangefinders adjusted to accommodate the lens. Others have reported finding spacer rings behind the Hexanon lens mount, which when removed, apparently cured focusing/sharpness issues.</p>

<p>It seems that in the last ten years, the Konica Hexanon 50mm f2 has developed a cult following which would account for the inflated price of used samples today. Years ago anecdotal reviews comparing the Hexanon 50mm to the Leica Summicron 50mm were far less favorable than they are now. Thus, I concede that my, '<em>by all accounts</em>' comment is not accurate.</p>

<p>Lacking the energy today, I just don't feel like Internet researching, or I would make a greater effort to dig up the reviews from respected sources that support my assertion posted above. Hopefully someone else will. In any case, whatever I came up with would not change the minds of Konica Hexanon 50mm f2 owners who are happy with their lenses. The fact is that it is a fine lens, but I still contend the Summicron 50mm is a superior lens, optically and mechanically, based on my recollection of past formal reviews comparing these two lenses.<br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It seems like most people would agree that even if there is a difference between the two lenses, it is not drastic. You might find it if you go looking for it, but why bother? My advice would be to use the money you might have to spend to get the summicron on something else -- put it towards the M9, another lens, or just use it to have some nice prints made and framed. This lens swapping can be interesting and fun, but it rarely has much of a real impact on photography. Since you say you are very happy with the lens, just stick with it. Even if you are missing <em>something</em> (and a lot of people, myself included don't really think you are), you are not missing much. Since you have not tried a Leica lens, maybe you could try the 35/2.5 Summarit or 75/2.5 Summarit? Both are fairly inexpensive for Leica lenses and yet perform spectacularly well.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Doesn't this depend on factors such as film type, development, and method of enlargement? If you shoot tri-x and scan on a flatbed, you may never see a difference. If you shoot fine-grained films and make big prints on a condenser, you may notice.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For now I scan with a coolscan5, but my darkroom is waiting in my storage for an upgrade of my apartment/house. I mostly print 30x45cm. I do use a lot of tri-x in ultrafin plus, - which I absolutely love for 20x30cm blow ups...but is also nice for 30x45. In summer I tend to use acros 100. TriX and ultrafin plus seems to give a true 400 asa, and the grain is nicely controlled. A good scan from acos 100 is really good. Just got a kid, so I will outsource my development for a while, which might lead to dropping TriX for a while (seems like the true asa for the minilab development is around 300 asa).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All right, let me put it differently. Even if a Summicron is better in absolute terms (in any respect), a <strong>good photograph</strong> will not suffer from having been taken with a Hexanon. A lens is not an end unto itself: it is only a tool for making photographs. No lens, howsoever good, will turn a lousy photograph into a masterpiece.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think that the Hexanon f2 and the current Summicron are much the same performance-wise - both excellent. The Leica will always cost more because it's a Leica and it will visually "match" a Leica body better, but that is about all there is to it. Personally, as the Summicrons are plentiful and relatively cheap (in Leica terms) I would probably try and pick up one of those, but a great deal on a Hexanon would be very tempting.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steven: I agree with you...but I haven't tried it on an M9. My thought was that if I have to buy a lens to get good results on the m9, I would start with the lens.<br>

Mukul: You are right, off course. But different lenses give different looks...<br>

I will take my lens and a memory card to the store and take some test shots - I guess that will answer my questions. <br>

Today I delivered a tri-x for the development at the minilab. I shot it at 320asa, but gave no instructions - hope that will give me better results than my previous attempt with minilab development (where all tri-x film were too dark). If it works, the need for going digital(*) will go drastically down. In a few years I will hopefully be able to develop my own films again. (* Have a Oly E3...but I am talking about rangefinders)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christian,</p>

<p>All you need to process your film is a <a href="http://www.adorama.com/DKT135.html">daylight developing tank</a> and a <a href="http://www.adorama.com/DKRP.html">35mm reel</a>. </p>

<p>Try shooting Tri-X at ISO 250. Develop it in D-76 diluted 1:1 with water for 7 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius. Agitate vigorously for 5 seconds every minute.</p><div>00Y3m6-322857684.jpg.5a5a8b3cfdf7be47b8aa80cd45e9c154.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"However, back focusing problems were reported when the Hexanon was mounted on some Leica M bodies, and this could account for the soft wide-open results found in some reviews I remember."</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, the backfocus problem occurred when Leitz lenses were used on the Hexar camera, not Hexanon lenses used on Leica bodies. The Hexar bodies had the lens mounts shimmed to correct the problem. The Hexar bodies and M-mount Hexanons were evidently manufactured in different factories.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have both a Hexanon 50 and a Summicron 50 and there is no difference in image quality. Both are very sharp and the build quality for both lenses is top notch. I freely mix and match Hexanon and Leica lenses on Hexar RF and M6 bodies with no back focus issues. I'm aware of the reviews and I believe some of the reviewers may have had an agenda. A better addition to your kit may be a 28 f2.8, either Leica or Hexanon. Good luck!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have owned two copies of each of these lenses and there is only a marginal difference in their performance, and I have compared scans at high magnification (although not from the same scenes). In my recollection, the Summicron had slightly (very, very slightly) better detail at extreme mag. The two Summicrons I owned (both latest version w/ pull-out hood) had a greater tendency to flare than the M-Hexanons, which had almost zero flare tendency. I also prefer the M-Hex's ergonomics (awesome knurls on lens barrel) and aluminum lens cap. As long as your M-Hexanon is performing correctly, I would not bother with the Summicron.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert Hopper, I have developed all my films up till this November. My problem is not the developing, but the drying. The bathroom, where I used to dry film, is no occupied by baby-baths etc... The rest of the house isn't dustfree enough... (And, I must admit, I do enjoy getting a print for all my pictures...so I can spend more time on scanning and adjusting the best pictures.<br>

Anyway, I think the I'll just keep it - and take some test shots with the M9 this weekend. A selv developed picture: (hexar rf+hexanon 50) - delta 400 I believe<br>

<img src="http://www.hilmersen.net/cmsimple2_4/images/trapp-montpellier-darker-small%20copy.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...