M-Hexanon 50/1.2 vs 50/2

[imush]

Question for those who have experience with both the regular 50/2 and the special 50/1.2 Hexanons. How do they compare, apart from the speed? I mean the "signature" and usability. Also, how large is the 50/1.2 lens? Is anyone using it as the all-around 50mm?

Any issue using it on Bessa R2/R3?

I am looking for a new 50mm; so my choices were 50/1.5 Sonnar or a used pre-Asph Summilux. A new Summilux is beyond my reasonable budget. Then I thought of Hexanons. For now, I only have the CV Heliar Classic 50/2, which I like very much, but it is still a "specialty". I would like an all-around 50mm lens, which I would use most of the time, preferably faster than f2.

 

[35mmdelux]

" I would like an all-around 50mm lens, which I would use most of the time, preferably faster than f2"

I would go with the 50 pre-asph summilux. its a solid lens without the "focus shift" issues. renders portraits excellent. I owned one and regret selling it (E46). Ive owned a clutch of 50s and presently have the 50 Hexanon f/2.0 and the Summilux ASPH.

 

[jja]

You cannot go wrong w/ the Hex 50/2, it is a wonderful lens. I have not owned the 50/1.2, though I am curious about it. Looking at the photos mounted on a camera--wow, it's big, and if you are worried size will be an issue now, then I suspect it certainly will be if you get the lens.

I no longer own the 50/2 Hex because I kept my 50/1.4 pre-asph as my all-around lens. It is sharp enough, has great bokeh, and it not too big (barely bigger than a 50/2 Hex).

35mmdelux--Having owned the pre-asph and now the asph, why do you regret selling the earlier version?

 

[imush]

I also have the CV35/1.2, the Hex50/1.2 seems smaller. Anyone using it with a Bessa R2x? How much of the viewfinder frame is blocked?

Admittedly, the size of my otherwise excellent 35/1.2 discourages me from carrying it around all of the time; I only take it when I know that I need the speed. So the CV40/1.4 does the job most of the time.

 

[sanmich]

The only 50 faster than f/2 is the canon 50 f/1.4.
I bought it as a lens not to be used very often and maybe a bit on the low quality side...
Boy, was I wrong!
It is excellent at all apertures.
Only bads (?): infinity lock, long throw (some like it) and the 1m minimum distance (that's a real drawback for me)

 

[awilder]

The 50/1.2 Hexanon-M is pretty expensive at about 2K, so I think that's a problem given your budget restrictions. Not too many out there but one was up for sale in our classifieds several weeks ago and I'm not sure if it sold at the asking price. I've used both 50's and will say it's arguably the best 50/1.2 made for an rf camera but stop for stop, the 50/2 will at least match it's performance.

 

[venchka]

For something completely different...

The Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4 LTM. A bit more budget friendly. Sturdy. Compact. Not too shabby as a lens either.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I can't comment on the f/2 Hexanon vs. the f/1.2, but for the money, I think the f/2 Hexanon is hard to beat. Very good build quality (noticably better than the CV, Zeiss and even Leica lenses I've owned) and a great performer without drawing too much attention to itself. A perfect all-around 50, unless you're convinced you need more than f/2.

 

[nobbylon]

I can't comment on the f/2 Hexanon vs. the f/1.2, but for the money, I think the f/2 Hexanon is hard to beat. Very good build quality (noticably better than the CV, Zeiss and even Leica lenses I've owned) and a great performer without drawing too much attention to itself. A perfect all-around 50, unless you're convinced you need more than f/2.

I agree completely, I really like mine and so glad I didn't sell it. I am still tempted by a Planar but have been put off by the build and quality control issues however you can't question the images the cv Planar produces.

 

[imush]

The thing is, I already have the CV Heliar Classic 50/2, and it is hard to justify another with similar box characteristics. Sometimes I need something faster, but the Heliar is an excellent lens.

Besides the Heliar, I also have an old Vitessa with Ultron 50/2. Picked up at a garage sale for $20 or so, it sure beats everything on the quality/price ratio. The Vitessa is not very usable in a social setting though, because its antique and unusual appearance attracts too much attention.

 

[hiromu]

I have 50/1.2, which I use on Hexar, R2A, and M4-P. It is big lens and when I mount it on F2A, I cannot use the lens hood. It blocks the RF window. Without the hood, it's okay.

By the way, I am selling my Limited lens right now, so if you are interested, find my ad in the for sale section. I am selling it because most of the time, f2.0 is fast enough and in such situation, I don't use bigger and heavier Hexanon...

Hiromu

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I agree completely, I really like mine and so glad I didn't sell it. I am still tempted by a Planar but have been put off by the build and quality control issues however you can't question the images the cv Planar produces.

I had a Planar for a few months. Optically, it's great. I can't see any real difference between the Hexanon and Planar images.

Mechanically, it felt rougher and looser than the Hexanon. Also, those Zeiss hoods are quite large and the lens caps are a PITA. Stick with the Hexanon.

 

[nobbylon]

I had a Planar for a few months. Optically, it's great. I can't see any real difference between the Hexanon and Planar images.

Mechanically, it felt rougher and looser than the Hexanon. Also, those Zeiss hoods are quite large and the lens caps are a PITA. Stick with the Hexanon.

Thanks for the info Andrew. I've looked at quite a lot of pics from the Planar that do seem to have a 3d effect that I like and that's the reason I'd like to try one.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Sorry for the continued thread hijack ...

Nobbylon, the nice thing about buying used gear is that you can usually sell it for pretty close to what you paid for it. If the Planar keeps you up at night, get a used one and decide for yourself! 🙂

 

[kevin m]

So many choices, so many conflicting filter sizes. 39, 40, 40.5, 43, 46, 48, 52, 55, 58, 60, 62mm. And that's just for the 50mm lenses. 😀

 

[venchka]

And something else totally different...

Canon 50/1.2 LTM.

You could have 1 of those, the M-Hexanon 50/2.0 AND a Planar and LOTS of $$$s left over for film & travel for what the Konica 50/1.2 costs.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

And something else totally different...

Canon 50/1.2 LTM.

I agree completely.

This and the Heliar 50/2 are my only 50's, and they're quite different. Their "signatures" are both very distinctive wide open, and until you stop down there isn't a lot of overlap.

Heliar wide open:

Canon wide open:

The Hex may be a better 1.2, but you can get a Canon 50/1.2 for much, much less money, and have plenty left over for...I dunno...like four CV lenses?!?

 

[Keith]

I'm all in favour of fast glass and I think the Hex 1.2 is a fair leap ahead of the 1.2 Canon ... web based images considered. $2000 is a lot of money though and it only seems like a bargain because the Noctilux is such a slug dollar wise.

When I want to shoot a 50mm 1.2 these days more often than not I use my f1.2 Zuiko on my OM-1 ... at 1.2 it lets enough light in that the OM's viewfinder is a match for most rangefinders in poor light for ease of focusing and the very short depth of field is far easier to control with an SLR IMO.

I like my f1.2 Canon RF lens but I find the minimum focus distance of 1 meter and the longish focus throw a bit of a disadvantage. I think I get better results with my Zuiko nine times out of ten!

 

[David Murphy]

I agree the Canon 50/1.2 is quite a deal, and it is very decent wide open. The only problem (for buyers) is that they are accelerating in price lately - the good ones at least. I've seen the price roughly double in the last six years or so.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

web based images considered

ouch, got me!