Anyone have experience with the Hexar 35/2 lens yet?

[joshroot]

I saw Alex Shishin make reference to having seen the Hexar 35/2 lens. I am hoping that he will give us any info he has. Has anyone else seen it? Maybe it's a Japan only lens. Are there pictures on the web anywhere? Anyone own it yet?

[albert_smith]

I use to live in Japan, and still have friends there who send me

Japanese camera magazines. In the April 2001 issue of "CAPA", there

was a review of the Konica 35mm f/2.0 with many photos.

 

<p>

 

There were several things that made me wonder about its quality.

First in another issue of this same magazine that reviewed the

original offerings from Konica for the RF, the 28mm, 50mm and 90mm

lenses, there were several examples of these lenses used at their

maximum apertures. These lenses looked very good at the widest

stops, and in theory, this should have been the weakest aperture, so

it was a good move... showing very good results at the worst case

setting. With the new 35mm lens, no images were presented at an

aperture wider than f/4.0. One would expect that an f/2.0 lens

closed two or three stops would be at the optimum aperture, but

rangefinder users are often at the limits as far as light, so how

does this lens perform at the maximum aperture? Why wasn't the same

criteria used for this lens as the previous offerings from Konica?

If this lens was good at full aperture, then I would think that it

would have been shown to in the report, as was the first generation

of glass from Konica. Anyhow, the images shown are not bad, but again

at those apertures, a Summicron is bitingly sharp.

 

<p>

 

One point of interest, especially considering many of the long

threads on the LUG about the cross-compatibility of Konica / Leica

lenses and cameras... all of the photos in the article were made with

the Konica lens on a Leica M6.

[jay_.]

This is interesting. I seem to remember the 35 being the weakest

performer in the Contax G lineup also. I guess the Summicron is an

intimidating act to follow.

[shel_belinkoff]

Erwin Puts has done some testing of this lens, and his comments, taken

from a newsletter he distributes, follow:

 

<p>

 

The new Konica M-Hexanon 35mm lens, that I have been testing (see my

site for more info), has not only be used on the bench (as some of you

still seem to believe). I am also doing extensive tests with film and

normal photographic subjects. For this comparison I used Kodak 100SW.

I

also made colour prints with a high quality 160ISO lower contrast film

with good colour fidelity. But as noted often colour neg film is for

90%

at the mercy of tyhe print shop and they do not do a good job. So

comparisons on the basis of colour prints are not well founded or even

of dubious nature. The slide film test gave these additional results.

At

full aperture the lens is prone to flare and has also a quite high

amount of spherical aberration, which shows itself in the softness of

the finer details and the overall haze of lightness that transcends

the

whole image area. It lacks the punch of the Summicron asph. There is

also a tendency to generate secondary images and reflections with

strong

(oblique) light sources (like the sun in a corner of the lens). When

stopped down to 2.8 or 4, the image crispens visually and here we have

first rank quality. The bokeh is a fine mix of smooth gradient from

sharp to unsharp, but with some of the brittleness in the distant out

of

focus areas where the outlines are doubled and the right spots are

rough. Despite the comments on the performance wide open this is a

high

quality optic in the front rank of current designs. Mechanically the

Konica is a class better than the Voigtlander lenses: there is only

very

slight decentring, the mount is very smooth and sturdy without any

play.

The Voigtlander lenses I had at least showed pronounced decentring and

sloppy mounts. Optically the Konica 35 is not as good as the Summicron

wide open and it does indicate the leica philosophy that building lens

with excellent properties wide open is an art and an expensive one.

You

know what you pay for in a Leica lens: excellent performance wide

open,

and generally transparency and clarity in the fine details, and that

luminosity and crispness of detail in the shadow parts and high lights

that are true hallmarks of a well designed lens.

[albert_smith]

Here is Erwin's full review:

 

<p>

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/hexarrf.html

[joshroot]

In all honesty, I think Erwin Puts is a prototype

knucklehead "Leicaphile". I dislike reading his reviews because they

are all the same. Nothing will ever be as good as Leica and Leica is

GOD. On occasion there may be a slight change in this stance, but not

very often.

 

<p>

 

If I want opioions like that, I'll just read Leica brochures.

 

<p>

 

But it is good to know that this lens does in fact exist.

[andrew11]

Josh is right. Just read that last sentence. I thought it was a

review of the Konica lens?

[kens]

Don't sugar-coat it, Josh. Come out and tel us how you really feel ;-

)

[mike_foster]

I have the Hexar 35/2 lens and I like it very much. First it is

cheap. I got mine for only $565. About half of what the ASPH

Summicron goes for.

 

<p>

 

I use it for low light with TMax 400 and wide open seems fine to me.

 

<p>

 

The build quality is amazing. Better than Leica in my opinion...

[joshroot]

Mike, where did you get the lens? At that price, it's a steal if it

can be compared to the pre asph 'cron. How big is it (compared to the

cron)? I don't suppose you have any JPEG's?

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi

 

<p>

 

I too am considering the Hexar 35mm, I have the 50mm which is

fantastic, though I did go for the Leica 90mm.)

 

<p>

 

I have seen the 35mm in London, build quality is excellent but it is

quite big and I would prefer a simpler hood design.

 

<p>

 

I am waiting for some more reviews before jumping (some rather more

objective ones than on the Erwin Puts site - does the 0.09mm

difference he refers to really matter for real photography no one

else has ever mentioned this?)

 

<p>

 

Tapas

[Robin Smith]

Well Erwin is perhaps a knucklehead, but he might also be right! What

is really needed is a totally impartial observer - detailed MTFs would

help - but I for one could not be bothered to look at them. Basically

he thinks it is a really good lens! He just says the Leica lens is

better wide open - this is not unreasonable given the huge price

difference between the lenses. Whether anyone else notices the

difference is debatable, but poor old Erwin clearly can see something

- he is cursed with only be able to use the very finest and most

expensive lenses - that is perhaps his problem (actually as

Leicaphiles it is usually our problem too).

[marc_bergman]

Robert White has the Hexar 35/2 for $525.

<p>

<a

href="http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/35mmOthers.htm#LabelKonica">Robert

White</a>

[mike_foster]

Josh,

 

<p>

 

I got mine from E-Bay. It is a small lens but not as small as the

Leica. It is lighter though, I think.

 

<p>

 

The hood is big. But I like it that way. It does not add to the

weight and it protects the lens surface.

 

<p>

 

Marc, you say "Robert White has the Hexar 35/2 for $525". That is SO,

SO misleading. For starters they do not take payments in US DOLLARS!

They are in the UK. They take "pounds" and they ask 370 of them.

 

<p>

 

Now, all you did was multiply that by the rate you got which I assume

is 1.4189. That rate is the Interbank rate for transactions of ONE

MILLION DOLLARS. How will you pay? Let's assume credit card. Even the

best credit card bank will give you a rate at least 2% less than the

Interbank rate. So you would get a rate of 1.4473 that makes is

$535.50. Then most credit card companies also charge a 1.5% "foreign

transaction fee". So makes it $543.53. Then the shipping. A minium of

$30, lets say. And then there is customs duty of 2.2%. So the total

is $585.49.

 

<p>

 

So there.

[chris_timotheou]

Mike � the world does not revolve around your backside and, strange

as it may seem to you, some Leica photographers do actually live here

in the UK, and paying in British Pounds is no problem whatsoever!

Frankly, I was very pleased with the information Josh supplied �

which was much more interesting than the garbage you came up with -

because the only other UK price I found for this lens until now was a

much higher quote! So there!!

[mike_foster]

Chris, you are saying absolute "rubbish". Mark quoted the price in US

Dollars. So that information was NOT for you Brits. That information

was for people in the US, otherwise he would have said 370 "pounds".

Or do you use US Dollars in the UK now? Hell, you don't even like the

Euro!

 

<p>

 

Moreover your head does not work properly, since it was NOT Josh that

provided that information, but Marc. See, you don't even know what

you are talking about!

 

<p>

 

The information I provied was EXTREMELY useful for us folks here in

the USA. So there.

 

<p>

 

Go have a nice "cuppa" tea...

[chris_timotheou]

Mike - OK! OK! Truce - and my apologies for my un-gentlemanly

conduct - I got a little carried away but let's not use this forum as

an excuse for fighting the Battle of Independence all over again!

Maybe I'm a little envious of you guys over there because your camera

prices are so damn low - it sometimes gets to me!

[mike_foster]

Chris. Truce it is! I am sorry too. I was just trying to make a point

to us US folks here that you need to add a lot of charges, that's all.

 

<p>

 

Actually our prices here are NOT that low! Like you said, even with

the extras, UK has better prices on Konica, Voigtlander and even some

of the Leicas. And on Mamiya stuff US prices are about TWICE than

that of the UK. Nikon and Canon maybe a little cheap here but only a

little. So don't feel so bad.

 

<p>

 

If you really want to feel bad, then let's talk "Petrol" prices... I

just filled up my tank and the price I paid was $1.14 per gallon or

about 20 pence per litre!!!

 

<p>

 

Take care now.

[Alex_Es]

Did I hear my name called? Well, like the Genie that pops out of the

lamp, here I am.

 

<p>

 

Josh--

 

<p>

 

Two things are as important to me as optical performance. One is how

the lens handles: how it feels in the hand, how it sits on the

camera, how its operation holds up in the field. The other is

durability. I think the Konica 35/f2 is well made. It is light. Its

dept of field scale (very important to me) is very good. It has a

focusing tab, like Leica's 35's. (Important to me as I am a

Rapidwinder fanatic.) My fingers were happy turning the apature ring.

No problem with the lens shade being in my way. The shade itself is a

gem. Look through the viewfinder and it is so thin it almost

disappears. Strictly from outside appearances, it is obvious to me

that a lot of attention to detail went into the designing of this

lens. The lens practically screams, "I wanna be a Summicron!" Konica

apparently used an old Summicron formula for the Hexar AF (and the 35/

f2 the sold as a limited edition in screw mount). The optical formula

for this M mount Hexar 35/f2 is new.

 

<p>

 

How good is this new optical formula?

 

<p>

 

Here is my very limited and subject evaluation based on a few frames

shot in a photo shop at f2. Take it with a grain of salt. Erwin

Putts has no rival in me.

 

<p>

 

When I saw the shots the Voigtlander 28/f1.9 made wide open in a photo

shop I went "OOOOOOH! AHHHHH! I want it!" When I saw similar wide

open shots I'd made with the Konica 35/f2 I said, "Hmmm. Not bad.

Okay."

 

<p>

 

What we like in a lens is subjective, face it. The genius of a lens

goes beyond simple figures and charts. As one of our posters so well

put it a few days ago elsewhere the optical formula has to create an

overall pleasing image and it does so with balances of design. All of

my Leica lens, no matter how old, have that OOOOH, AHHHH factor. A

certain snap. A certain presence. All of this is, of course, a

matter of calculation and testing, though for us it might come out as

elusive or mystical. For me the Voigtland 28/f1/9 has it. The Konica

35/f2 had less of it--at least in these few initial informal test

shots, which--I have got to emphasize--prove very little, if anything

at all.

 

<p>

 

I know this is not only unscientific but also unfair. I have a Hexar

AF and the images it produced are great. (That camera let me shoot

fairly immobile people wide open at chest level quietly--that was more

important than anything else.) I am certain that if I went out and

bought the Konica 35/f2 and used it in the field I'd probably be very

happy with it simply because of its ease of operation. (I cannot

stress enough how important that is.) A great thing about Konica's

35/f2 and 28/f2.8 is that their hoods don't hog a quarter of the

viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

What I'll do is pop down to a camera shop where I've tithed a goodly

portion of my income and fool with that lens extensively. I'm also

interested in how it handles flare--a major problem in my beloved

Summilux 35/f1.4.

 

<p>

 

There is one other thing to consider. The vanity factor.

Psychologically it may be the hardest to substitute another 35/f2 for

a Leica 35/f2, given the quality of Leica's 35/f2 Summicrons and their

reputation as ipso facto standard lenses. A 28, a 90, even a 50 is

one thing. A 35/f2 is another. How important is that to you? If it

is important best to admit it before you buy. This sort of thing does

affect how you shoot.

 

<p>

 

Price is a factor you need to consider. A matter of saving a few

hundred dollars shouldn't be an issue. Economize elsewhere; don't

drink wine for a month. If it is huge sum, then it is a an important

factor. Like it or not, we are less enthusiastic about taking super-

expensive equipment out into the field where it can be stolen or

damaged (one reason I avoid commemorative Leicas and such). Also why

pay more when you can get virtually the same for less--the Voigtland

28/f1.9 being a case in point. Tom Abrahamsson wrote that choosing to

buy the 28/f1.9 over the $2000 Leica was a "no brainer." (He also

said--it was in an article or to me or both--that the Voigtlander

handled better.)

 

<p>

 

There really is no major difference between the price of a good used

Summicron 35/f2 and the Konica Hexar 35/f2.

 

<p>

 

If I happen to buy the Konica 35/2 it will be for fairly mundane

reasons. I like the way it operates. I know I'll be able to buy a

fairly cheap replacement for the shade if I break it.

 

<p>

 

I'm also fascinated with Konica's new optical formula for this lens.

But that is the tinkerer in me.

 

<p>

 

While at it, should mention that the frame preview level came off my

Hexar RF thanks to a loose screw. Saved the level but not the screw.

My Hexy has performed flawlessly over the 1 and 1/2 yrs that I've had

it. But these little mechanical problems--like the top place on the

hotshot that kept falling out until I epoxyed the beggar in--annoy me.

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Alex

 

[joshroot]

Thanks Alex!

[lutz]

Wow, Alex. What more can be said? Great contribution - passionate AND

thoughtful.

 

<p>

 

Well, for the record and for those of you reading French, there is a

review of the Hexanon 35/2 in the July issue of "Réponses Photo" which

IMHO is the most informative photographic magazine I have come across

so far.

 

<p>

 

<A HREF="http://www.tipa.com/reponsesphfr.html">http://www.tipa.com/

reponsesphfr.html</A>

 

<p>

 

In short, the reviewer (Claude Tauleigne) praises it for built and

optical quality but blames it for lack of bite on the borders when full

open, for bulk and for it's high price. At the same tag he would rather

prefer a used pre-asph over a Hexanon - not for performance but for

handling.

 

<p>

 

So, it seems there's nothing but a personal test ride to be taken...

[Alex_Es]

Thanks for the good word, Josh.

 

<p>

 

Interesting about the French review. Seems to confirm my gut level

instincts regarding that lens. I know I was unfair but in the hard

headed photo world unfortunately "unfair" reactions to images is a

part of life.

 

<p>

 

cheers,

 

<p>

 

alex

[Alex_Es]

And many thanks to the other contributor!!

[joel_matherson]

I do agree with comments about the "Erwin Puts, Leica Propoganda

Ministry" and generally take his views with a grain of salt but he

did make one concession to the Konica 35, he said it was superior to

the pre-ASPH 35 Summicron. Considering this lens has a very good

reputation and people on LUG dispute the virtues of the old Summicron

35 over the ASPH, even if the Konica is in the middle of these 2

lenses it must surely be a great lens of excellent value.

[Alex_Es]

That settles it. I'm going to shoot a roll or two with this lens.

Check flare, check ease of operation, check the AHHH OOOH factor!