Erwin Puts Slams Hexanon Glass on Leica M Body

35mmdelux

35mmdelux

Veni, vidi, vici
Local time
1:08 PM
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
4,211
Holy Summicron, say it aint so...

"It is clear from the facts that the dimensions and tolerances between Leica and Konica differ, even if the M-bayonet and the KM-bayonet fit. The mismatch that has been reported, may be caused by any of the factors involved: differences in flange to pressure plate distance differences in film channel thickness differences in cam/curve engagement differences in lens flange to focal plane distance differences in tolerances differences in engineering solutions (the Konica roller arm and cam are more sensitive to changes and tolerances than the Leica version differences in film flatness between several film types."

Here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/technique/page44.html

[scroll about 3/4 of the page]

Seems to have been subject of much discussion on PNET a few years back. Anyone noticing this in the bigger enlargements?

EDIT: Puts says they're better than Leicas of the same generation and better built. I didnt have any problems with my Hex 50mm/2.0. Any strong opinions?
 
Last edited:
I have only used the 1.2/50 Hexanon and it looked mostly ok on film as I recall, but it clearly did not focus correctly on an M8. This is common with that lens. Some claim that it is only a problem with early serial number lenses but mine was late and I have heard of a few other late ones with problems as well.

It is not really a big deal -I just had it adjusted for the M8 and it is great now. I am sure the 2.0/2.8 lenses would be less problematic. It wouldn't scare me away from them.
 
The debate had to do with film to flange distance and assumptions made about film curvature at the gate. These issues have been around for a long time, and I have custom adjusted Canon lenses to work with Leica bodies- all from the 1950s.

Same story, decades later. It's just been longer since anyone BUT Leica made RF lenses.
 
Had the 28mm, 35mm L-Hexanon, 50mm 2.0, 50mm 1.2 and 90mm for a long time.

My 90mm had a bit of front focus when focused at closest distance on the M8. I only used that set up for photographing gear that was getting sold, so not too often.

This issue seems to be a persistent one. I think is is a matter of perception. I read before that someone sold a Hex 50mm 1.2 because it did not focus correctly on an M8. This weekend, I came across a fellow at Aperture, London who had owned 5 (!) M8's and they all had focusing issues, all at different focal lengths. He kept the most decent one of the five, sold two and returned two.

None of the others had any issues, not even the 50mm 1.2 on the (late serial) M8 I owned. The 90mm has no trouble with my M3, M5 or with the M6 that replaced the M8.
 
Funny enough, the only lenses I had problems with on Leica bodies - were made by....Leica. Go figure. Yet I use 28,35,50/1.2 and 50/2 and 90/2.8 hexanons on Hexarf RF, M5 (before used some of them on M3 and M6), Bessa R2m (sold now) and Epson R-D1s and somehow never had a problem. I think problem comes from people that either never used Hexanons and just read stuff on the net, or have misadjusted cameras/sample variation or simply dont know how to focus.
Meanwhile, instead of reading same old bull**** info by Puts, I'd go and take some pics with Hexanons.
 
This old chestnut! I guess it can all get rehashed with respect to the M8/8.2/9 now. My KM Hexanon 50/2 focused fine on my M6, as well as on my ZI and R-D1 (colors were especially good on the R-D1).

It is funny how so many different lenses backfocus on the Leica digital rangefinders and need to be adjusted, but it's the lenses that get the blame - lenses that focus perfectly on different film bodies. It is a pretty high barrier to entry to the Leica DRF experience if I have to buy duplicates of the lenses I like and have them adjusted for the digital body - if I want to keep using film.
 
My experience with Hex glass on an M8

1. 28/2.8 - no issue
2. UC 35/2 - no issue
3. M 35/2 - no issue
4. M 50/2 - 2 copies - neither focused properly
5. M 90/2.8 - no issue

My experience is much too limited to draw a conclusion, but the 50/2 does seem to get the most attention in this regard. All of the lenses above worked perfectly on my R-D1 and on various film Ms.

Putz's article is vintage 2004, or thereabouts. Old hat.
 
Last edited:
Krosya said:
I think problem comes from people that either never used Hexanons and just read stuff on the net, or have misadjusted cameras/sample variation or simply dont know how to focus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess your experience is the only one that counts. :rolleyes:

Mine didn't focus correctly (all my other lenses did) on the M8. It was sent to DAG and adjusted (absent my camera) for proper standard Leica focus and focused perfectly when it came back. It was the lens.

Are they all like mine was? I doubt it, but it is foolish to discount the possibility of having to adjust the lens - particularly on the M8. There are numerous accounts of problems, but that said, I sure wouldn't hesitate to buy another if given the right lens and price!
 
Last edited:
I have only the 50/2.0 M-Hexanon and it is tack-sharp on both, my M4-P and M7, at all focusing distances. However, a lens working well on a film body doesn't imply that it also works well on a sensor-equipped body, c.f. 35mm Summilux ASPH ...
 
gdi said:
Are they all like mine was? I doubt it, but it is foolish to discount the possibility of having to adjust the lens - particularly on the M8. There are numerous accounts of problems, but that said, I sure wouldn't hesitate to buy another if given the right lens and price!
Click to expand...

Well that can be said about ANY lens - Leica, Zeiss, CV, Canon and Hexanon as there are accounts of this with other brands. No reason to single Hexanons out, really. Yet Puts does it. As well as others.

As far as -"Yeah, I guess your experience is the only one that counts.
"
No, but I did use many Hexanons, more than average user, I'd guess, several copies of the same FLs on many different camera bodies, but never on M8, as I dont have one. But with all the copies of Hexanons, and all the cameras - I never had any problems with focus. Sure - its still a small sample, but probably more than average one.
 
I now have Krosya's 50/2, and it focussed well on my M2 until I had that. The negative scans were good enough for 16" x 12" prints.
 
I have the uc-hexanon 35 and the 28 hex and they focus fine. I briefly (1 day) had a 50/1.2 hexanon I had bought from an RFFer and found it to have poor focus on my M8. Unfortunately, I decided to return it and is now either lost somewhere between Canada and Australia or stolen and I'm out $2000 pending an ongoing investigation. My uc -hex is one of my favourite lenses. I'm about to receive a l-hex 50/2.4 in screw amount. Hopefully I'll be able to test it on my M8 when it comes back from it's top LCD repair.
 
Krosya said:
Well that can be said about ANY lens - Leica, Zeiss, CV, Canon and Hexanon as there are accounts of this with other brands. No reason to single Hexanons out, really. Yet Puts does it. As well as others.

As far as -"Yeah, I guess your experience is the only one that counts.
"
No, but I did use many Hexanons, more than average user, I'd guess, several copies of the same FLs on many different camera bodies, but never on M8, as I dont have one. But with all the copies of Hexanons, and all the cameras - I never had any problems with focus. Sure - its still a small sample, but probably more than average one.
Click to expand...

I fully agree that such things could happen with any brand lens. What I didn't agree with is that anyone having focusing problems with a Hexanon doesn't know how to focus or that their camera is improperly adjusted.

It is obvious that some slightly maladjusted lenses (any brand and especially the Noctilux) never cause any problems when used on film cameras, but become troublesome on the M8/M9 (add Gary's unfortunate experience above to the list.) With all the conflicting info about this topic, from bench measurements to subjective user data, it only makes sense to consider the possibility of having to adjust a fast longer lens after purchase.

I think it cost me around $100 for Don to adjust mine to Leica standard - well worth it to end up with a sharp superfast lens for use on the M8. (And sharper than the Noctilux, which could require adjustment as well.)
 
My experience:

I have the 50/2 Hexanon sold w/the Hexar RF & it focuses fine on all of my M bodies, including the M8.

On the body side of the equation, I have had no problems focusing Leica lenses on my Hexar RF, including the Noctilux. The only problematic lens I have is the 75/1.4 Summilux, which doesn't focus properly on my M8, I think due to the shape of the curve on the cam.
 
Last edited:
Not to disrespect the Hexanon lenses at all when I say this, but...

They really have gone up in price. When I started on RF a couple years ago, a 50/2 Hexanon could be had for ~$300 and was a fantastic buy. Of the four standard Hexanon lenses, the 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2.8, only the 35/2 was $500-600+. They were great buys. Even the 35/2 wasn't that bad, since the Leica 35's were always pricey.

The Zeiss ZM line wasn't quite out yet either, or was just being released, I don't remember. So for a good, modern-ish 50/2, you either had to hunt for a used newer model Summicron (which is what I ended up with) for $500-600, go for the Hexanon, or pick up a CV 50/2.5.

Nowadays, the 50/2 Hexanons are running around $500. I don't get it. Why not just snag a new Zeiss 50/2 for a bit more, or pick up a used one for less? The same goes for the 28/2.8. The only one that is really attractive to me anymore is the 90/2.8, but I don't think it's really worth the going price. I'd probably be better off with a Leica for the same price, or the CV.

This of course doesn't apply to the 35/2 UC Hexanon, the 50/1.2, 60/1.2, that dual range one, and other limited edition/special lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom