35 m-hex and 35 uc-hex

S

sooppi

Newbie
Local time
3:09 AM
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
6
hi,

i am interested in purchasing the hexanon lens for my m system. Can anyone tell me the difference in picture quality between 35 m-hexanon and 35 uc-hexanon? is there a difference? if so, how. how about the build of the lens? i'd really appreciated if anyone could post comparison pictures taken from the two lens. thanks
 
I had Hexanon M 35/2 for sometime, but sold it in order to get Hexanon UC 35/2, which has its own signature and very small in size.
 
Personal observations:
A. UC-Hexanon 35/2 when compared to M-Hexanon 35/2 :
1. Smaller.
2. Better built.
3. Hard to find/collectors lens.
4. rather long min focus distance of .9m.
5. LTM (or M with adapter) mount.

B. M-Hexanon compared to UC-Hexanon:
1. Larger.
2. Well built, but not as well as UC-Hex.
3. Has better?/smoother bokeh, yet UC-Hex is very good too.
4. .7m min focus - better for some applications.
5. Cheaper usually, but also not very common lens to find.
6. M-mount only.

Bottom line - Can't go wrong with either one!
 
One more pro, for me at least:

The 35/2.0 UC-Hexanon works much better on my Canon VI-T than the 35mm M-Hexanon.

But seriously, I have both LTM and M bodies. That's why I bought the UC-Hexanon. After using it, I'm keeping it for all of the above reasons. A KEEPER if there ever was one.
 
Last edited:
If I ever narrow down to just one 35mm RF lens - from two - I will keep the UC-Hexanon and sell the 35mm Summilux ASPH (just not today ;)).
 
I'm scanning some negatives now from a wedding I shot some five years ago with the M-Hexanon. It's a very, very good lens. It has a more gentle signature wide-open than Leica's aspherical 35's, yet it's still very resistant to flare, coma, and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom