sonyleica
Member
I think these pics speak all about this amazing lens. Really love this lens. All taken wide open when I brought my kids for Princess on Ice Show and I sat on a seat around 50 meters from the centre stage. Taken with Leica M8
Last edited:
__hh
Well-known
Lovely colours and composition. How do you find this lens compared to the Leica 35mm ? Some say that it is similar to the V4 pre-asph.. thoughts???? How does it handle physically?
Back to the photos: I think you nailed the exposures here... It would have been a difficult situation(s) to get the right exposure, but you've done very well here (nothing to do with the lens, of course).
Back to the photos: I think you nailed the exposures here... It would have been a difficult situation(s) to get the right exposure, but you've done very well here (nothing to do with the lens, of course).
Last edited:
sonyleica
Member
I wish I could make a comparison if I have the leica 35. But I have none yet.
This lens is small but solid. Focusing is easy. Blends well with M8 if attached and really fit for strret shooting
This lens is small but solid. Focusing is easy. Blends well with M8 if attached and really fit for strret shooting
venchka
Veteran
I have no experience with the 35 Summicron. The wee UC-Hexanon is a delightful jewel. If it has any flaws, I haven't found them.
Last edited:
sonyleica
Member
Yes it was not easy to capture moving objects under those lighting. Especially with rangefinder camera. So I just put focus on infinity and set the aperture at its widest. I brought two hexanons (35uc and 50f2). I was surprised to find that the 35uc managed to handle the situation very well while the 50 could not perform well. All pics taken with 50 hex were a bit blurry and not as sharp as those of 35uc. Also, my new sdhc memory card helped me a lot in taking continuous shooting.
sonyleica
Member
From Dante Stella`s website, its close focus is 0.9 m which is longer than Leica`s 0.7 m for the same 35 FL. Someone also mentioned that 35 M Hexanon has shorter close focus than 35uc.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
I have both lens and I can confirm the UC's closest focusing distance is a tad further than the IV. So 0.9 vs 0.7 sounds about right even though i've not tested them.
I've not used the UC that much to make much comparisons yet but will be making more use of it this summer before deciding on which one to keep.
So far I've been very pleased with the IV. In terms of build, the UC is better built than the IV.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I can confirm (I just checked mine) that the M Hexanon 35 focuses to 0.7m . It's a ver y different lens from the UC Hexanon 35, though (I have and use both).
...Mike
sonyleica
Member
Some more from a happy user
ferider
Veteran
If you want the uc with 0.6m min focus get it with a Hexar AF attached
Nice photos.
Roland.
Ghiom
Established
+1 ! Go for the Hexar AF !!!
venchka
Veteran
If you want the uc with 0.6m min focus get it with a Hexar AF attached
Nice photos.
Roland.
A lot cheaper too.
kermaier
Well-known
Maybe one flaw (or advantage, depending on how you want to look at it) is that it does not have the "leica" dot/name on it
Actually, the lack of a red dot is sort of a flaw!
The problem is, the UC-Hex is a LTM lens, and it's base is wide enough to completely cover the LTM-M adapter. That, unfortunately, obscures the red mounting index dot/notch on the adapter ring -- so it's a bit of fumbling and squinting to get the lens in the right position to mount.
::Ari
kermaier
Well-known
Build quality and finish are fabulous -- brass body, wonderful enamel paint job, everything fits perfectly.
The focus is smooth and well damped -- not too loose and not too stiff; and the tab is nice.
Aperture ring is stiffer than a lot of other lenses, Leica included (more like a vintage Canon RF lens in that respect), but it's still easy to use and clicks very smoothly and solidly.
Filter ring is 43mm, compared to the Summicron pre-aspherical's 39mm.
I don't like the original screw-in vented shade that came with the lens (though it does have a nifty feature that the front part rotates after it's mounted so that you can line up the vents with your RF window) -- it's too big for such a compact lens. Instead I use a Cosina Voigtlander shade that originally came with the Skopar 35/2.5 P, with a cap that fits on the hood.
Very nice pictures wide open, smooth, good OOF areas, muted color palette. Very sharp and contrasty stopped down a bit.
:Ari
Sonnar2
Well-known
The UC Hexanon and the M Hexanon are quite different animals though same speed, focal lengths and lens making company, for different photographing approaches, and should not be mixed up.
The most earnest competitors for the UC Hexanon are used 4th Gen. Summicrons 35/2 (which flares more than the UC Hex) and the new Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8, which is available new, one stop slower, but maybe a bit sharper.
If you want a new screwmount 35/2 in compact size you wouldn't even consider the M Hexanon.
If close distance is your concern you will not even think about a UC Hex. Either chose a 85mm instead of a 35, a M mount instead of a screwmount, or SLR instead of RF camera.
The UC Hex 35/2 is pretty unique in what it offers. The M-Hex 35/2 can be outperformed in any aspect by the Biogon 35/2, except for price.
The most earnest competitors for the UC Hexanon are used 4th Gen. Summicrons 35/2 (which flares more than the UC Hex) and the new Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8, which is available new, one stop slower, but maybe a bit sharper.
If you want a new screwmount 35/2 in compact size you wouldn't even consider the M Hexanon.
If close distance is your concern you will not even think about a UC Hex. Either chose a 85mm instead of a 35, a M mount instead of a screwmount, or SLR instead of RF camera.
The UC Hex 35/2 is pretty unique in what it offers. The M-Hex 35/2 can be outperformed in any aspect by the Biogon 35/2, except for price.
Krosya
Konicaze
I would disagree with this. M-Hexanon performs better than Biogon. It has at least as good flare resistance. The way I see it it's almost as good as Summilux Asph, but not as clinical. Also, used (since you cant buy a new one) M-Hexanon usually sells for more than used Biogon 35/2, that is if you can find one. Also, I prefer signature of the M-Hexanon better than that of a Biogon.
Sonnar2
Well-known
The most horrible thing with the M8 is: Many people need to buy cheap Japanese lenses later on caus they can't effort Leica glass anymoreRFF is not a good place when one tries to save money... look what came in the mail lately
Did you gray the Leica on the picture? The glossing black of the lens make the Leica finish looking dull.
sonyleica
Member
RFF is not a good place when one tries to save money... look what came in the mail lately
And a photo taken with the lens, with an M7 & Tri-X
This black brass lens also looks great on a black paint MP (will get photos of the set up if anyone is interested).
Hunghang, congrats on your new lens. Enjoy it! it is beautiful lens. Try to shoot buildings at wide open at night, it is beautiful.
sahe69
Well-known
How do you find the differences in the (subjective ) imaqe quality between these lenses Mike? I have an M-Hex 35 but I find myself attracted by the UC, maybe because I've had several AF Hexars in the past. The smaller size of the UC would be an advantage too.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Came close to selling mine a few weeks ago. But in then end, I decided I just can't let it leave my hands right now. As you said earlier, the only thing that keeps it from perfection is the minimum focus distance.
I bought a ZM 35/2.8, thinking I'd replace the UC Hexanon with it. But in the end, I decided the .2 meters closer focusing (.9 v. .7) wasn't worth the loss of an f stop.