Contax G 35mm planar vs Hexar AF lens

[AdamF]

How do they compare in terms of sharpness and distortion? I want to switch from leica M2 to af system with intention of using only 35mm lens. People rave about hexar lens but when I'm looking at the pictures there's something I don't like about it. Maybe too smooth and it looks like it exhibits some sort of distortion. I would be grateful to hear your opinions.

 

[nex100]

The Contax G 35mm is a little soft at F2 and has virtually no distortion. The 45mm is very sharp and is the best lens in the Contax G line up.

 

[pgeobc]

I do not know about Hexar lenses, but own Contax. Although many people claim that the 35mm lens is the least sharp of the line, I would take some issue with that. I have read the MTF curves and they are just fine. But more importantly, I have taken pics and looked at many pics taken with that lens and it is very good, indeed.

My order of lenses is: the 45mm and the 28mm, followed by 90mm and 35mm.

 

[sanmich]

Frankly, if you are interested only in the 35mm FL, why wouldn't you get yourself an Hexar AF.
Once you checked it doesn't have the shutter trigger problem, it's the best 35mm AF camera in the world.

 

[back alley]

x100?
that lens is amazing!

 

[filmfan]

The Hexar AF is one of the all-time greats. There is some distortion though. I know a Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist who used the Hexar for years with much success, including many covers for prestigious international magazines. If the camera was adequate enough for him, it is plenty for anyone. I have used this camera extensively over the years and love it. Many say the same about the G2 however...

Edit: I am now a G2 owner and prefer it!

 

[awilder]

Unless you must have an f/2 speed, the Contax T3 is worth a look. When I owned one, the 35/2.8 Sonnar's IQ is second to none (including Leica) and it focuses down to 0.35 meters, closer than the Planar or Hexar. The camera is quite small and worth the high price it commands. I've used a 35/2 UC Hexanon (same design as the Hexar AF lens but the UC has a better coating) on my M6 and it's a little soft wide open but by f/4 it's quite sharp. Can't speak for the 35 Planar.

 

[raid]

I favor the G1 over the Hexar AF. I find a fixed 35mm lens too confining.

 

[filmfan]

I favor the G1 over the Hexar AF. I find a fixed 35mm lens too confining.

This is a drawback for some and beneficial to others.

 

[sniki]

Contax G lens are really superb, but Hexar AF 35 lens is a bokeh overplayer.

 

[Steve M.]

I've owned the Contax G cameras and the Hexar AF's, and much preferred the IQ of the Japanese Zeiss optics on the Contax cameras. Pretty quirky bodies to be sure, but you have to adapt to all the whirring noises and squinty viewfinder. Their 90 is a fine portrait lens, and as others have said the 45 is tack sharp. Those were the only lenses I shot, but other people raved about the 35.

I found the Hexar AF's IQ to be a little bland, though certainly sharp. A journalist would like one because of the silent operation and AF. It's top shutter speed was a deal killer w/ 400 speed film too. I ended up selling both systems and going to old Leica glass mounted on either modern film SLR's or Bessa rangefinder cameras because I prefer that sort of IQ. If I shot color I'd sorely be tempted by that Contax G glass.

 

[raid]

I went back to using the Contax G glass. Then I got a second G1 body this week. I want to make the G1 my main travel camera. I don't have the G 35mm, bu have the G 28mm as my wide angle lens.

 

[sanmich]

The reason I prefer the Hexar is not the quality of the lens, although it's lens is superb.
The finder of the Hexar is great, similar in principle to Leica's, positioned at the left end of the camera, and it's a bright line type. The contax is much closer to a P&S finder: tiny and not showing anything around the frame.
The AF of the Hexar is also really better. Never, EVER, had a problem nailing the focus right away. The G1 I once tried was quite often missing focus.
The Hexar is silent, while the contax is a little sound machine, buzzing and whirling.
IMHO, The only thing the contax has over the hexar is interchangeable lenses...

 

[ianstamatic]

If you have a working body the focus problem is a non event on the G.

 

[zleica]

The Zeiss Plannar 35 shares the similar (almost the same) optical design of the Leica Summicron 35 pre-ASPH, while the Hexar is a modified version of the Summicron 35 pre-ASPH. The Hexar has the focus shift correction build into its AF system so it's a bit sharper at 2 and 2.8. But step down, I like the Zeiss 35 Plannar better. I have since sold my Hexar, but I still use the Zeiss 35 on my Contax G2 regularly. I wish I will use it more often.

 

[ianstamatic]

This is making me want a 35 for my g.

 

[redisburning]

least sharp contax g lens is like shortest guy on a pro basketball team...

if you don't like samples of hexar why are you considering it? maybe you can ask someone around here who owns one to send you something printed on real paper if all you've seen is online samples though.

 

[splitimageview]

G 35 is an excellent lens. It's a planar, not a biogon.

 

[k__43]

I own a Hexar AF and find the lens outstanding good!
I absolutely love it's transition from focus to oof parts. It's one of the sharper lenses in my shelf. the silent mode is crazy silent, so silent that I sometimes have to take a shot twice cos I didn't hear the shutter
the downside is the really limited manual focus, there are just subjects that are not compatible with the AF. I miss one or two frames per roll, when I'm not checking the distance readout. The Contax is the winner in this field I guess.
The viewfinder is large and bright on the Hexar, I've heard the Contax's is rather small.