kanzlr
Hexaneur
Good morning.
I read a lot about these lenses in the last few months and I became curious. So I bought three from different sources: A 90/2.8 for € 230,--, a 50/2 for € 350,-- and a 28/2.8 for € 600,--
to make things clear: NONE of these did focus properly on my M8 (while all Leica, Minolta and Zeiss lenses I own do). All have backfocus, and all to a comparable degree.
now what did I do? I sent back the 28mm because it was rather expensive to begin with. Instead I got myself a Biogon and am happy.
That left me with the two longer lenses. I got the 90 first and after some tests, I put some tape on the RF cam and focus was spot on (according to Puts, the difference between Leica and Konica is 0.04mm. Most insulation tapes being in the <0.1mm thickness range this seems to be correct). But the problem with the 90 is that the RF cam rotates during focusing, putting extra stress on the tape that won't sit there securely anyways. Also, you have to manage to apply it without ripples over a longer part of the chamber back (That is pushing in the RF lever in the body) and this was trickier than I thought.
In the end I decided to send it to Don at DAG camera in the US (a hassle if you live in Europe. But I couldn't find anybody in Europe willing and able to adjust this lens. Don said he can. I hope taxes and duties won't come in as too big a shock.
Finally, the 50. It arrived yesterday evening and I was sobered to learn that it too had some back focus. But the 50 chamber does NOT rotate! thus I again put the insulation tape on the chamber. It is much easier here, because you just have to cover the small spot where it pushes the RF lever, not 1/3 or 1/4 of the whole chamber. It worked flawlessly, the RF is now SPOT on with the 50/2, but again, insulation tape is not a lasting solution.
due to the difference recorded by Puts being 0.04mm (with some tolerances), I will buy 0.035mm thick copper foil used to repair conducting parts. They are self adhesive, bend easily, can be cut easily, and have almost the perfect thickness.
Will report back when I have results with this method.
What I wanted to say: Don't buy M-Hexanons if the seller won't guarrantee that they focus correctly on the body you plan to use it with. The digital Ms seem to be bitches in regard to this. The alternative is, get a cheap M-Hexanon and be prepared to either fix it yourself if you are more of the Mc Guyver type of guy/girl or to send it to DAG, who charges around USD 90,-- for the service (+ shipping and duties and taxes if you live outside the US and are unlucky).
I don't doubt that there are many Hexanons out there that work perfectly well with digital M cameras, otherwise there wouldn't be so many posts about the success with these. But either this is luck regarding Konicas tolerances, me being unlucky with three samples of different lenses, or the lenses that work have been adjusted by Konica or a Konica workshop to focus properly on Leica M bodies.
I really can not say why, but I only know that I was disappointed that NONE of the Hex I tried focused properly.
On the other hand, I today and yesterday shot a few test shots with the Hex 50/2 with the tape in place and boy it is surprisingly sharp at f2, has nice color and contrast and creamy OOF areas. Very nice thus far
I read a lot about these lenses in the last few months and I became curious. So I bought three from different sources: A 90/2.8 for € 230,--, a 50/2 for € 350,-- and a 28/2.8 for € 600,--
to make things clear: NONE of these did focus properly on my M8 (while all Leica, Minolta and Zeiss lenses I own do). All have backfocus, and all to a comparable degree.
now what did I do? I sent back the 28mm because it was rather expensive to begin with. Instead I got myself a Biogon and am happy.
That left me with the two longer lenses. I got the 90 first and after some tests, I put some tape on the RF cam and focus was spot on (according to Puts, the difference between Leica and Konica is 0.04mm. Most insulation tapes being in the <0.1mm thickness range this seems to be correct). But the problem with the 90 is that the RF cam rotates during focusing, putting extra stress on the tape that won't sit there securely anyways. Also, you have to manage to apply it without ripples over a longer part of the chamber back (That is pushing in the RF lever in the body) and this was trickier than I thought.
In the end I decided to send it to Don at DAG camera in the US (a hassle if you live in Europe. But I couldn't find anybody in Europe willing and able to adjust this lens. Don said he can. I hope taxes and duties won't come in as too big a shock.
Finally, the 50. It arrived yesterday evening and I was sobered to learn that it too had some back focus. But the 50 chamber does NOT rotate! thus I again put the insulation tape on the chamber. It is much easier here, because you just have to cover the small spot where it pushes the RF lever, not 1/3 or 1/4 of the whole chamber. It worked flawlessly, the RF is now SPOT on with the 50/2, but again, insulation tape is not a lasting solution.
due to the difference recorded by Puts being 0.04mm (with some tolerances), I will buy 0.035mm thick copper foil used to repair conducting parts. They are self adhesive, bend easily, can be cut easily, and have almost the perfect thickness.
Will report back when I have results with this method.
What I wanted to say: Don't buy M-Hexanons if the seller won't guarrantee that they focus correctly on the body you plan to use it with. The digital Ms seem to be bitches in regard to this. The alternative is, get a cheap M-Hexanon and be prepared to either fix it yourself if you are more of the Mc Guyver type of guy/girl or to send it to DAG, who charges around USD 90,-- for the service (+ shipping and duties and taxes if you live outside the US and are unlucky).
I don't doubt that there are many Hexanons out there that work perfectly well with digital M cameras, otherwise there wouldn't be so many posts about the success with these. But either this is luck regarding Konicas tolerances, me being unlucky with three samples of different lenses, or the lenses that work have been adjusted by Konica or a Konica workshop to focus properly on Leica M bodies.
I really can not say why, but I only know that I was disappointed that NONE of the Hex I tried focused properly.
On the other hand, I today and yesterday shot a few test shots with the Hex 50/2 with the tape in place and boy it is surprisingly sharp at f2, has nice color and contrast and creamy OOF areas. Very nice thus far
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
I had the same experience with M-Hexanons and sold them.
At that time, I didn't know about www.kameraklinik.de - have you tried to contact them?
Cheers,
Uwe
At that time, I didn't know about www.kameraklinik.de - have you tried to contact them?
Cheers,
Uwe
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Thanks Uwe, didn't know them. I will contact them if they adjust the M-Hexanons
the lenses themselfs are amazingly good, but that doesn't help much if you can not focus them properly
the lenses themselfs are amazingly good, but that doesn't help much if you can not focus them properly
MCTuomey
Veteran
my experience, all on an M8
m-hex 28/2.8 - no focus issues
m-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
uc-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
m-hex 50/2 (2x) - misfocus
m-hex 90/2.8 - no focus issues
my understanding is that the m-hex 50/2 can be reshimmed to achieve accurate focus on the M8/9 bodies.
m-hex 28/2.8 - no focus issues
m-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
uc-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
m-hex 50/2 (2x) - misfocus
m-hex 90/2.8 - no focus issues
my understanding is that the m-hex 50/2 can be reshimmed to achieve accurate focus on the M8/9 bodies.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
reshimming makes sense, but without instructions, I think I will stick with the tape solution for now, if the repair shop isn't able to help.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
kevin m
Veteran
The issue isn't "back focus," it's some incompatibility between the RF mechanism in the camera body and the lens itself. The margin for error is fairly close on a film body, and a digital sensor is even more unforgiving.
Back focus issues would only crop up with fast, wide glass, not 50's and 90's.
Back focus issues would only crop up with fast, wide glass, not 50's and 90's.
mathomas
Well-known
I have back focus (or mis-registration) with my 90mm + M8 as well. However, the quality of the lens is such that I live with it. I'll have to try the tape technique and test it. I don't usually use the lens on my M2, but I wonder if the tape will cause the lens to significantly front-focus on that body, or will film's greater focus tolerance make it less of an issue in that context?
Am curious about the cost for re-shimming or adjusting. Kanzir, please report back.
Am curious about the cost for re-shimming or adjusting. Kanzir, please report back.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I owned the:
M-Hex 28/2.8, focus issue on Minolta CLE
M-hex 35/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/1.2, no trouble
M-Hex 90/2.8, focus issue on M8.
All lenses were shot with: Minolta CLE, Leica M3, M4, M5, M6 and M8.
I think the 0.04mm margin for error caused the trouble. I used to shoot these lenses without any hesitation when I had them and considered them flawless at the time. Only after reviewing older shots have I recently found that some lenses had issues, on specific bodies.
Presuming the OP tested his lenses wide open and closest distance: I never used them like that, unless toying around with them. I used them for daytime reportage work and street, often stopped down and ±3 mtrs focus. Never any issue.
Only sold them for financial reasons and while converting to an all LTM kit. Tell you what: I'll give you USD 200 to cut your loss on that 'faulty' 50/2.0
M-Hex 28/2.8, focus issue on Minolta CLE
M-hex 35/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/1.2, no trouble
M-Hex 90/2.8, focus issue on M8.
All lenses were shot with: Minolta CLE, Leica M3, M4, M5, M6 and M8.
I think the 0.04mm margin for error caused the trouble. I used to shoot these lenses without any hesitation when I had them and considered them flawless at the time. Only after reviewing older shots have I recently found that some lenses had issues, on specific bodies.
Presuming the OP tested his lenses wide open and closest distance: I never used them like that, unless toying around with them. I used them for daytime reportage work and street, often stopped down and ±3 mtrs focus. Never any issue.
Only sold them for financial reasons and while converting to an all LTM kit. Tell you what: I'll give you USD 200 to cut your loss on that 'faulty' 50/2.0
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I wonder what your definition of back focus is?
back focus = the area BEHIND the subject is in sharper focus than the area you focused on. And thats what the Hexanons I have/had do. This has nothing to do with the focal length. of course it is more pronounced with shallow DoF, but if examied closely, it can be seen with all lenses.
the incompatibility is exactly that, the rf doesn't match the lens adjustment.
of course this is back focus.
and yes, I think it pops up on digital due to the one dimensionality of a sensor, the high resolution and the option to easily zoom in etc. With the 28mm Hex I had to look twice, except when I shot f2.8 at close distance, there it was obvious. With the 90 and 50 it is obvious wide open at somewhat close distances, but there is still a big resolution drop stopped down or further away. Adding tape makes it focus perfectly fine close and far away. Must be luck that the tape I use has the correct thickness.
And the fact that Konica adjusted Hexars to work nicely with Leica lenses should be a hint, too...
peter_n
Veteran
Shouldn't be, their QC was legendary.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I read about that Peter. But then I wonder why a lot of people have success with their Hex-on-M and others, like me and Uwe don't.
ampguy
Veteran
no problems here, sounds like a mis-calibrated M8. What Leica lenses are you using with success?
maddoc
... likes film again.
M Leica ans focus problems ? ... could well be the camera ...
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I was sure somebody would question the bodies calibration
Lenses that work fine:
Zeiss 28/2.8
Zeiss 25/2.8
Minolta 40/2
Leica Elmarit 90
Leica elmarit 28 v4
Jupiter on LTM adapter
Lenses with back focus:
Hex 28
Hex 50
Hex 90
See, I don't say the hex are bad and I fixed the 50 for myself and have DAG fix the 90 (he did that for several people already).
kanzlr
Hexaneur
See, what I am really curious about is why some lenses work and others don't.
I fully believe that yours, and a lot more focus fine. But also many don't. Just a word of warning. I just went to the park to further test my hex 50/2 tape solution and out is a wonderful lens, really.
I fully believe that yours, and a lot more focus fine. But also many don't. Just a word of warning. I just went to the park to further test my hex 50/2 tape solution and out is a wonderful lens, really.
ampguy
Veteran
Was your jupiter ever modified?
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Now that you ask I have to correct myself...the jupiter doesn't focus properly.According to kim from pentax manuals some shims are missing. Still, the M-mount ones all work. That and approx two months ago my M8 was in Solms for sensor repair and they said they also adjusted the camera for free.
ampguy
Veteran
hmm, no idea, did you buy all 3 m-hexanons used? from the same person? perhaps they had it adjusted for their bessa or zi that needed some slight modification and now the mod needs undoing for your leica?
kanzlr
Hexaneur
no, the 90 was from classiccamera.at (very friendly people, btw), the 50 was from a forum member (dslr-forum.de) and the 28 from SH photo (German shop). So three different sources.
If ALL the M-Hex in existance would back focus, I would understand it. But that makes no sense that only some work. Maybe Konica changed something during their production? I would love to try your Hex on my M8, but I bet they would be spot on, as otherwise there would be a lot of complaints with Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. too.
If ALL the M-Hex in existance would back focus, I would understand it. But that makes no sense that only some work. Maybe Konica changed something during their production? I would love to try your Hex on my M8, but I bet they would be spot on, as otherwise there would be a lot of complaints with Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. too.