M-Hexanon 28/2.8 or M-Rokkor 28/2.8?

A one sided lop sided review of the M-Hexanon: Love it. No white spot affliction. Very well made. Does not Flare. Ever. Probably larger than the Rokkor but not obese. I'm guessing: More expensive but considerably newer than the Rokkor.

Looking at your equipment listing, we share in common:

Canon 35/2.8
Nikkor 50/1.4 S.C
Leitz 50/2 Summicron
Konica 35/2 UC-Hexanon

Very interesting. I use the 28mm M-Hexanon alongside several of your lenses.
 
I use it on Bigfoot & Bubba

I use it on Bigfoot & Bubba

kermaier said:
What body are you using? Are there any focus issues with the M-Hex on a non-Hexar body?
::Ari
Click to expand...

The 28mm M-Hexanon is used on a pair of M5 bodies. One with and one without 28mm frame lines. Bubba had the more modern frameline upgrade installed by DAG. The 28/90 pair is activated by the lens. Bigfoot is stock. The 28mm lens brings up the 90mm frame which is the meter area for the lens. The whole viewfinder suits the 28mm F.O.V. No worries.

Band+Winnsboro+Bakery+12-09-06.jpg


M5-28+M-Hex+Track.jpg


The lens works!
 
Last edited:
Don't leave out the 28mm Biogon from your considerations.

That's the one I chose after trying a head to head with it and the Hexanon and the CV28mm/f2 Ultron.

The Hexanon is a very nice lens though.
 
Hmm. I'm a fan of compact and solid build. The M-Rokkor is smaller, but I suspect less solidly made (if it's similar to the 40/2 M-Rokkor). The M-Hex is probably extremely well built (if it's anything like the 35/2 UC-Hex), but bigger.

Wayne, does the M-Hex block the viewfinder much? Also, it seems the M-Hex does not have a focus tab (I like tabs) -- how do you find the ergonomics in use?

::Ari
 
I like the lens. No tab. The lens is long enough not to need a tab. The square cut surface on the focus ring is very grippy. I can focus by placing a finger against the ring and moving my finger left or right. Easier to do than explain. The wee 35mm UC needs a tab & I love it. My only lens I own with a tab. Excluding infinity stops. The 28mm hood is vented. I don't think it's a bother. The lens uses 46mm filters if that tells you anything. I bought 39mm & 43mm step up rings and standardized on 46mm filters. Most convenient.

The only problem I have is that I don't use it enough. That's my fault not the lenses fault. I should switch with the 35mm lens mid-year in my 1 year project.

ps: I've never encountered another lens made and finished like the UC-Hexanon. The 28mm is very well made, but different.
 
Last edited:
venchka said:
I like the lens. No tab. The lens is long enough not to need a tab. The square cut surface on the focus ring is very grippy. I can focus by placing a finger against the ring and moving my finger left or right. Easier to do than explain. The wee 35mm UC needs a tab & I love it. My only lens I own with a tab. Excluding infinity stops.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get it -- that would work for me, though I love tabs. (Almost all of my lenses have a tab, if you include infinity locks, which I use as a tab.)

venchka said:
The 28mm hood is vented. I don't think it's a bother. The lens uses 46mm filters if that tells you anything. I bought 39mm & 43mm step up rings and standardized on 46mm filters. Most convenient.
Click to expand...

That would be the biggest filter size yet for me, aside from the Canon 50/1.2. But I don't use filters -- I'm shooting only digital on an R-D1. The M-Rokkor has a 40.5mm filter ring.

venchka said:
The only problem I have is that I don't use it enough. That's my fault not the lenses fault. I should switch with the 35mm lens mid-year in my 1 year project.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a general problem I have. If I buy one of the three 28/2.8 lenses under consideration here, it would be in addition to my CV 28/3.5 Skopar (very sharp, contrasty, solidly-built and tiny) and Canon 28/3.5 black (sharp, medium-contrast, solidly-built, very compact) lenses. The main reasons I'm considering a new 28mm is a desire for a bit more speed, and chronic, uncontrollable GAS.

::Ari
 
OK, the light bulb just went on. The 28mm Hex lens is closer to the size of my 50 DR Summicron or 50mm Nikkor. It is not tiny like the Canon 35/2.8. Few lenses are.
 
Dont know about the Rokkor, but Hex is simply Superb! I use 28mm lens least, and would not sell my 28 Hex .
 
kermaier said:
How's the Biogon compare with the Hex in terms of size, build and ergonomics?

::Ari
Click to expand...

Although there wasn't much in it, I'd have to say I liked the build and feel of the Hexanon more than the Biogon. As mentioned earlier the square cut grip on the focus ring is very good.

In the end I plumped for the Biogon because I like the way Zeiss lenses render. It was fractionally better on very fine detail and has that Zeiss pop that I loved from my 50mm Planar.
I seem to recall the Hexanon was perhaps slightly smaller than the Biogon, but again there wasn't much in it.

Whilst I was in the shop I was told by the chap serving me (an ex-Leica man) that he suspected that Leica had bought the tooling for the lens bodies from Konca as some of the current Leica lenses were so close in constuction. This is just hearsay of course but it was an interesting point.

I still want a Hexanon lens as I like the feel so much (and also have a Hexar RF), but unfortunately I don't currently have the funds.

I don't have any experience with the Rokkor, but I'm very confident you wouldn't regret buying a Hexanon (or a Biogon).

Happy Hunting!
 
Krosya said:
Dont know about the Rokkor, but Hex is simply Superb! I use 28mm lens least, and would not sell my 28 Hex .
Click to expand...

Same thing here. I own a Komura 28mm 3.5 and it is 55mm wide, but only half the length of the M-Hex. But, when in need of that stop I gladly take the M-Hex out. And I'm not considering selling it, since I'm impressed everytime I do!
 
venchka said:
Surely Raid has or had the 28mm Rokkor.
Click to expand...

I have the Rokkor-M since many years, and I like it very much. My lens never developed white spots. I don't have a Hexanon 28mm lens to compare it to, but I have a Canon 28/3.5 and a Kobalux 28mm/3.5. The Canon lens maybe is the least modern, and the other two lenses can keep up with modern 28mm lenses. The Rokkor issmall and not heavy. I know that some people have equated it with the 28mm Leica lens of its time.

When the M8 came out, many people lusted for a 28mm lens that gave them something close to 35mm on the M8. Since a Leica 28mm requires a second mortgage, the Rokkor fetched over $800 at one time.
 
I remember that when the28mm Rokkor first came out Modern Photogtraphy Magazine tested it as well as the 28mm Elmarit and the resolution of both lenses was about the same up and down the f-stop range. The Rokkor was half the price the Elmarit and wouldn't bring up the 28mm frame in the M viewfinder. The entire finder area was about right for the 28 though, frameline not needed. I just wish I'd known that Minolta was offering a free fix for the white spots.
 
Haven't used the 28 Rokkor, but the 28 M-Hex is quite a bit better than the Zeiss 28. The M-Hex is a clone of the 8 element Elmarit V4, and sharper than a Summicron 28/2. The build quality of the 28 M-Hex is miles above any CV or Zeiss lens.
 
The 28 was the first of the three M-Hex lenses I bought, together with my first Hexar RF body, in early 2002. It's the most-used lens of the trio, and I've been nothing but happy with it. Again, it simply does what it's supposed to do, and the images it offers up want for nothing to my eyes.


- Barrett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom