GAS and a quandry

[Phil_F_NM]

I have a Konica UC-Hexanon that I'm selling but I have reservations on doing so. I LOVE the lens. My reason for selling is to fund a 35mm pre-ASPH 'Lux.

The issue I have with selling it is that the Konica lens just makes such beautiful images. It is a fantastic lens. There are only 2 cons that I can find with the UC-Hexanon:
*Close focus = .9 meters
*Aperture is f/2 (this is not a con at all but in comparison with a 'Lux is just slower.)

The cons to a 35 'Lux are:
*More coma
*More flare
*Much more cost

Pros of the 'Lux:
*Focuses closer than the UC Hexanon
*f/1.4

Both the lenses are tiny which I love.
I guess the issue is that I already own the UC Hexanon and have learned to really shoot with it, it's strengths and very few weaknesses, over the last 10 months.
I ask myself: "Do I need a Summilux?" Do I want to spend another $1000+ on top of the money I get for the UC-Hexanon?

I put this to the forum to help me think outside my GAS attack that I've had for the last week.

Phil Forrest

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I thought only the earliest 35 Summiluxes focused to .9m and the later versions focused to .7m (what is the plural for Summilux? Summilae?)

If this is so and there aren't any that focus closer than .9m, I'll definitely keep the Hexanon.

Thanks!
Phil Forrest

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

The close focus of the summilux is actually - 1 m

As you know I am also struggling with this choice... aren’t we lucky

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Yeah, we certainly are. I could have sworn that some vintage of the pre-ASPH 'Lux focused closer.

Phil Forrest

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Your four total cents of wisdom are certainly appreciated by me and my wallet!

Phil Forrest

no the pre-asph lux, the one he'd want without the goggles, has a MFD of ,9m.

In terms of rendering, you get a great look either way. I will say this, however: the pre-asph has a charming glow, and way of rendering creamy whites that is lovely, but you do get image-destroying flare and ghosting light at times, too. I found the lens rather unstable when shooting in low light, as a single lamp or candle could screw up the negative. I couldn't trust it. Whereas your uc hex is likely full of lovely rendering, but much more stable in challenging light.

another 2 cents

 

[tbarker13]

I am fortunate enough to have both lenses at this time.
Forced to choose, I'm not sure which way I would go.

They both create really nice images. And I have to say that I haven't noticed a lot of issues with flare on my lux. I wouldn't call it flare resistant, but neither have I had any images ruined because of the flare.

One thing I love about the hexanon is the screw-on filter. I don't always use a lens hood - and the M8 with hexanon creates a very compact package.

Here is a lux shot in absolutely awful conditions. It was pitch black outside, with the only light coming from these bright lights outside the door (one you can see, the other is just outside the right side of the frame.) This was ISO 640 or higher, wide open and at something like 1/8 second.
These are cast members of a play I was documenting - they are rushing to make their entrance through one of the theater's outside doors.

Another shot. This one also wide open. Using the lamp to the left of the frame.

And also shot wide open under less than optimal conditions - only light coming from stage lights during a rehearsal. I'm never sure if this is the glow that people talk about, but Frankenfurters' legs certainly seem to be glowing.

 

[kermaier]

The last pre-aspherical 50mm 'lux focuses to 0.7m, but not the 35mm.
Don't give up the UC-Hex, it's too good as an all-round 35mm, and the pre-aspherical 'lux is more special-purpose.
Also, if the 'lux is $1000 more than the UC-Hex, either you got a real bargain on the Konica, or you're spending way too much on the Leica. From what I've seen, the 'lux goes for $1500-$1700, which is about $500 more than a UC-Hex.
I'd pretty much only think about selling my UC-hex for a 'cron Aspherical.
::Ari

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The prices on pre-ASPH Lux's right now is through the roof. User bargain condition samples from the early infinity lock days are going for $1600 while later versions are reaching around $2300 average with some going well above that.

tbarker13: thanks for the images! There is a case for when you need f/1.4, you need it. Thank you for your insight as a user of both right now.

Phil Forrest

 

[t.s.k.]

The prices on pre-ASPH Lux's right now is through the roof. User bargain condition samples from the early infinity lock days are going for $1600 while later versions are reaching around $2300 average with some going well above that.

Really? What a volatile market. I guess I should be glad I bought when I did, although I already know I'll be using it less since acquiring an M-hex just a few days ago. My CV 1.2 will play second fiddle to the hex.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Don't sell the Hexanon! If you have a burning desire for new glass, buy the CV Nokton 35mm f1.4 instead (either SC or Double Coated).

One very useful thread you should take a peek at is HERE. I was lucky to read it in its early stages and it saved me from picking a $1500 Summilux of Adorama (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Instead, I saved a little more and bought the Aspherical version.

Then, this was some time ago. Prices are now all crazy.

Best of luck!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've looked at the Pre-ASPH 'Lux thread a few times in the last few days. The whole way through each time.
I don't like the notion of a lot of focus shift from the Noktons but buying one new might be worth it just to test it out for myself in comparison to the price of the 'Lux right now. I'm seriously thinking that I averted the purchase of the pre-ASPH and if I'm to go for a fast 35 it would either be the new 'Lux (after saving a lot) or the f/1.2 Nokton. That's just a special lens there.
Of course, I HAVE always wanted a 35 f/1.5 Canon because I love what I've seen from it here & elsewhere. This "savings" could just be a fast Canon calling my name.

Thanks!
Phil Forrest

 

[ferider]

The pre-asph Summilux is like a v4 Summicron with an extra stop. It only flares at f-stops smaller than f2. From f2 and up you will have a hard time distinguishing its results from the Hex. Except for distortion, where the lux is clean, and the Hex distorts very noticeably at closer focus.

I've had the Canon 35/1.5. Beautifully built lens, but talking about coma, you get about the ugliest "fish-scale" bokeh from any 35 I've tried - well maybe my Canon 35/2 was just as bad.

If you want more real speed (i.e. without flare and heavy coma) and closer focus, your only ways to go are aspherical lux or one of the Noktons (1.4 or 1.2).

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, you DON'T need a Summilux.

And I speak as a Summilux addict. When my first was stolen in the early 80s, I replaced it (new) immediately. And, incidentally, it focuses to about 90cm. I'm still using it.

You've got a lens you love, and you're selling it for one you don't know? Is this rational? No.

But unlike JSU, I sold my Summicron -- I had both for a few years -- because I found the Summilux more ergonomic and more useful, with no advantage t speak of by f/5.6 and a LOT of advantage at f/1.4. In those days, though, slide films were mostly ISO 25-64.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ampguy]

A good cleaned and Solms adjusted '80s pre-asph lux post infinity lock is the best deal. No/low flare, no distortion, and stopped down, similar or better to a Summicron 35.

Condition is everything here. If someone's is flaring all the time, even wide open, there's an issue with that particular one.

All pre-asph lux's 35 I'm aware of focus just below 1m, but 1m is the shortest indicated. The throw is about 120 deg.

The 50 lux had a late run of E46 versions with built-in hoods that focus to .7m, perhaps that is where the thought came from?

Size is good for 1.4, between the size of a 35cron, and 35 asph, smaller than any other non mega distorting 35/1.4.

 

[semilog]

^------ I agree with Roger.

 

[Mister E]

The 35/1.4 LUX ASPH is the single best lens I have ever used. Sell whatever you have to to buy one.

 

[Tom A]

Also consider the ergonomics of the pre-asph Summilux 35. If you put a hood on it (Leica's) - the aperture ring is really a tight grip. The early version had the "ears" which helped - the later you have to "fumble" a bit to grip.
I dont have the UC- Hexanon, have used it and it is a very good lens. I would stick with it for now and spend the money on film instead.

 

[Mister E]

If I were you I'd consider the CV fast 35mm lenses also. The Lux ASPH is great, but the 35/1.2 isn't far behind and really has a great look (swirl)! It's really, really good. The CV 35/1.4 MC/SC is also great and just over $500. You could sell your 35/2 and get it. it focuses to .7m, is sharp and has a great look. The UC Hexanon has some distortion and so does the 35/1.4, so it wouldn't be much of a trade off there either.

The Lux ASPH, 35/1.4 CV and 35/1.2 all focus to .7m which is much nicer than the .9m of the 35/2 UC-Hex.

 

[semilog]

The 35/1.4 LUX ASPH is the single best lens I have ever used. Sell whatever you have to to buy one.

I'd say it's the second best lens I've ever used (I had one for over a decade). But the 35/2.8 Biogon-C is is even better — provided that there is enough light to use it.

 

[semilog]

Also consider the ergonomics of the pre-asph Summilux 35. If you put a hood on it (Leica's) - the aperture ring is really a tight grip. The early version had the "ears" which helped - the later you have to "fumble" a bit to grip.
I dont have the UC- Hexanon, have used it and it is a very good lens. I would stick with it for now and spend the money on film instead.

AUTAHTA!

(As usual, Tom A. has the answer!)