Konica Hexar RF and Leitz lenses

I wrote of my sad saga with my new Konica Hexar RF elsewhere in the forum. Konica replaced my body; the replacement focuses properly with a Konica lens.

<p>

However, I bought a Leitz 90 f/2.8 elmarit-m to go with the camera; this lens focuses past inifinity, I regret to say.

<p>

So, two questions to Leica and Konica owners: 1) Have any Konica owners noticed a focusing difference between Leitz lenses and Konica lenses? Konica said to me on the phone that Leica lenses wouldn't focus properly. And 2) have Leica owners/users noticed that different lenses focus differently on their M-bodies (that is, does someone have a 35mm f/1.4 that's dead-on accurate at infinity, but his 90 f/2 focuses a little past)? Being new to this system, I'm trying to sort out whether this a Leica/Konica interface problem, or is there always some variation among Leica lenses when mounted on the camera.

<p>

Or maybe I'm jsut being too picky?

<p>

thanks

All of my Leica lenses focus the same at infinity on my M3, and so

does the 40mm Rokkor from my CLE. I thought about you when I read

this article http://www.photoshot.com/articles/hexartest.html

which you probably already have seen. The writer was annoyed that the

camera couldn't focus any of the lenses right at infinity. Have you

tried shooting with the lens (the 90) wide open in the 4 to 6 feet

range to see if the images are back or front focused? At infinity,

depth of field will of course mask any minor problems, but wide open

at close range (where I use my 90 Elmarit a lot) is where you see what

the Konica can do. My CLE doesn't compare to my M3 when using the 90

in this way, and I have a feeling the Konica will be hit and miss like

my CLE, even if the split image is lined up at infinity because of the

effective range finder base.

I said it before, the Leica lenses focus fine on my Hexar. I will

ask the critical question, are they focusing OK? Lots of lenses

focus slightly past infinity, and the question here is whether they

focus properly at infinity. (Who shoots at infinity anyway?)

Looking at the focus distances doesn't seem too relevant to taking

photographs. Either it works or it doesn't.

<p>

The effective rangefinder base of the Hexar is sufficient for 90mm at

f2.8. It is insufficient for 90mm at f2.

Jeff, I do truly take your point. But the precision of rangefinder

mechanisms is critical for accurate focusing. The issue is not how

often one focuses on infinity -- probably pretty rarely, I would agree

-- but is instead this simple fact: if the camera can't focus

accurately and consistently on infinity, it cannot be relied upon to

focus accurately at any distance. That is MORE important at shorter

distances. The review to which Andrew alludes -- which I had not seen

before, regrettably -- would seem to confirm my concerns.

<p>

As I said, I'm not a fussy guy about camera stuff. However, I

honestly don't think that precision and consistency is a great deal to

ask for the money they are asking for this camera. Leica seems able

to achieve it, albeit for a bit more. Frankly, I would have bought an

M6 if not for two things: film-loading is unduly complex, and doing

four things to get every shot -- focus, set aperture, set shutter,

advance film -- just seems like a lot to me.

<p>

I don't suffer from the syndrome of waiting for the next great camera,

but in this case I think I will have wished that I had waited for the

M7.

I have a mix of lenses from different sources, and find that they

aren't all consistent in lining everything up at infinity. I've also

measured my LTM to M adapter rings (mixed brands, again), and found

that THEY weren't consistent, either, in their effective thickness. I

finally settled on a strategy which has worked well for me, but would

undoubtedly be hard for the normal (dare I say, compulsive) Leica

owner, and that is to get everything zeroed in for my most fussy

lens--an 85/1.5-- and let all the other cards fall where they might.

This is the only lens I habitually use at longer distances wide open

(the most critical focus combination--you'll notice that an inch

error at three feet is something like a thirty-foot error at 100

feet), and the others seem to do OK with the compromise. Even when I

had more Leica lenses than I do now they weren't always singing

together, and I've come to think that perhaps even temperature

changes (and the resulting expansions and contractions of metal

parts) conspire to prevent total precision in this regard, 100% of

the time.

michael -- that's very helpful and reassuring to hear, thanks.

<p>

John

Re your second question, the phenomenon you described indeed happens

to M-mount leicas, used with screw mount adaptors. I use an M3 and

most of my lenses are either Leica or Canon screw mount lenses. The

discrepancies occur with the shorter lenses, but not with lenses

above 50 mm. I did have some problems with the 85mm 1.9 canon on the

M3, but the focussing errors were not too great. I suppose that

focussing errors are tolerable with the shorter lenses. With Konica

Hexars, the same could probably apply as well.

In my case, it seems to be an issue with individual lenses rather

than a particular Konica/Leica problem. I can't say this with

100% accuracy, as I sold my m6 body awhile ago, but what I can

say is that some lenses seem to behave with minute variations

when focussing to infinity.

<p>

50mm/f2 Hexanon -- focus at infinity is 100% accurate

75mm/f1.4 Summilux -- focus goes slightly beyond infinity

50mm/f2.8 Elmar -- focus goes slightly beyond infinity

35mm/f2 Summicron ASPH -- focus at infinity is 100% accurate

25mm/f4 Voitlander -- not applicable as it's not coupled

135 Hektor -- focus at infinity is 100% accurate

<p>

The good news is that even at close distances with the 75

Summilux wide open the focus seems to be dead on when

viewing the photographs. All of the other lenses also show very

accurate focussing and I'm very, very picky and shoot wide open

with complete confidence.