How does the 50/2 hex compare to the 50mm summilux asph?

D

david.elliott

Well-known
Local time
11:41 AM
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,558
Good evening all,


I'm curious as to how the 50/2 hex compares to the 50mm summilux asph. Anybody who has used both of these lenses care to chime in? edit -- all opinions are welcome, naturally.

I currently own the hex and could sell a fair amount of equipment to purchase a summilux asph --- trying to figure out whether I should.

Thanks!

-David
 
I personally won't believe a word Mr. Rockwell has on the Konica offerings, especially the "inferior made" part. He even complains that the Konica back caps are worse than genuine Leica 14269s...
 
I read that review as well...then went ahead and bought the 50 Hex anyway...it's way less than half the price of the newest summicron, and I'm no good at counting pixels.
 
Can't really help you with the Hex v. summilux-asph comparison, but I can chime in on the Hex-Cron debate. I had the Hex and now have the pen-ultimate Cron (the one with focus tabe and separate lens hood). They are in two different leagues, indeed. Even though I disagree with Mr. Rockwell that the Konica isn't well built. In fact, that's the one area in which it was competitive.
 
I'ne never owned a Summilux, but have owned a Hexanon 50, as well as several versions of the 50 Summicrons (DR, Rigid, R 50, and collapsible). All the Summicrons were "better" than the Hex by a wide margin. By that, I mean their IQ was more pleasant, and their bokeh was a lot smoother. The Summicrons are the best 50 lenses I've ever used, bar none. The Hex was sharp, but the bokeh was ugly more often than not, and the lens was just too contrasty. Build quality was not the same as a Leica either.
 
I'm looking forward to some real-world input here from anyone that has owned both. Considering the price difference and the significant investment by anyone that owns a 50mm Summilux ASPH I'd expect that most owners would have to feel that the Summilux is a superior lens. I've owned a Summicron (non-ASPH) and currently have the Hex-M, and I must admit I can't fault the M-Hex for image quality, build or handling. But I'd like to have a 50mm Summicron, just for the 39mm filter ring.

And as anodyne to the Rockwell piece, can I recommend The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt by Michael Johnston.
 
You should ask yourself, if your are satisfied with your pictures. If not, you have to find out if its you (then go out and shoot ;-)) or if there is a look to your pictures you dislike technically - then change lenses. Otherwise its just GAS (Thats ok though) If you have gear you really don't need - then sell it - just for the fun trying the cron. Well - I had the cron and have the Hex - it doesn't make me less happy not to own the Cron any more. But there are so many other things to buy or need money for which really make difference in my life that - unless I win in some kind of lottery - the Hex is a great performer, much better than my ability as a photographer.
 
I have reached the conclusion that between the cron, the hex, and the planar, it boils down to ergonomic preferences and maybe built issues for the planar.
The three of them are better lenses than I am a photographer.
 
Probably the 50mm summilux asph is the best 50mm lens, I like 50 lux asph rather than the Noct. Good rendering , micro contrast,sharp

Hexanon comparable to 50 Cron
 
I had the Cron, tab focus, last before the fixed hood and kept the Hex. It has nothing to do with the price, I just like the look more than the Cron, especially with color film. I would love to own a Lux ASPH, but that's not likely to happen
 
ChrisN said:
I'm looking forward to some real-world input here from anyone that has owned both. Considering the price difference and the significant investment by anyone that owns a 50mm Summilux ASPH I'd expect that most owners would have to feel that the Summilux is a superior lens. I've owned a Summicron (non-ASPH) and currently have the Hex-M, and I must admit I can't fault the M-Hex for image quality, build or handling. But I'd like to have a 50mm Summicron, just for the 39mm filter ring.

And as anodyne to the Rockwell piece, can I recommend The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt by Michael Johnston.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to the same sort of input as well. And, darned good article. I think I had read it some time ago but it had since disappeared from my mind. It was good to read through it again.
 
FrankHarries said:
You should ask yourself, if your are satisfied with your pictures. If not, you have to find out if its you (then go out and shoot ;-)) or if there is a look to your pictures you dislike technically - then change lenses. Otherwise its just GAS (Thats ok though) If you have gear you really don't need - then sell it - just for the fun trying the cron. Well - I had the cron and have the Hex - it doesn't make me less happy not to own the Cron any more. But there are so many other things to buy or need money for which really make difference in my life that - unless I win in some kind of lottery - the Hex is a great performer, much better than my ability as a photographer.
Click to expand...

I'm usually satisfied with my photos. To be completely honest, the photos I'm most happy with are my macro photos and 90% of those are taken with a 50/4 smc macro takumar that I picked up for $65 and I use via an adapter on a digital camera. For the film realm, the photos that I'm happiest with are generally taken with my rolleiflex.

This is a case of want not need - I'm pretty certain of that. It would allow me to thin out some gear though. Not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing. 50 summilux asph = leica r8, 90 summicron-r, hasselblad 150, m-hex 90, m-hex 50.... That would be the true question I suppose.
 
sanmich said:
I have reached the conclusion that between the cron, the hex, and the planar, it boils down to ergonomic preferences and maybe built issues for the planar.
The three of them are better lenses than I am a photographer.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the same applies to me as well. And, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Stellar lenses by all (or, in light of this thread, perhaps only 'most') accounts.


I must confess to being rather taken aback by the comments in this thread slighting the hex in comparison to the summicron. In many, many other threads on this form the hex is lauded as the summicron's equal.
 
ChrisN said:
I'm looking forward to some real-world input here from anyone that has owned both. Considering the price difference and the significant investment by anyone that owns a 50mm Summilux ASPH I'd expect that most owners would have to feel that the Summilux is a superior lens. I've owned a Summicron (non-ASPH) and currently have the Hex-M, and I must admit I can't fault the M-Hex for image quality, build or handling. But I'd like to have a 50mm Summicron, just for the 39mm filter ring.

And as anodyne to the Rockwell piece, can I recommend The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt by Michael Johnston.
Click to expand...

Great Chris. I didn't realize that Mike started at LL. He sure can write.
 
Over time I have shot the:

Summilux VII
Summicron VIII
Summicron DR
Hexanon 50/2.0
Hexanon LTM 50/2.4
Hexanon 50/1.2

The Hexanons built quality compared to the Summicron DR alone. The Summilux VII and the Summicron VIII were less sturdy, had a more sloppy feel to them.

Bokeh is a matter of taste and overrated as a property. Contrast can be changed in software or in the darkroom.

If you want to keep the economy going, buy a new Summicron ASPH, Leica will like you for it. And so will I, more great-quality Hexanons for a reasonable price around for the rest of us! ;)
 
I own the Hexanon and the 50 Planar and have owned the 50 ASPH and all versions of the 50 Summicron.

The 50 asph has much higher contrast than the Hex, even wide open, and generally performs better with the exception of distortion at f2 and at less than 1.5 m focus distances. This difference is subtle.

The modern f2 50s are all comparable with subtle differences - the six element Summicrons all tend to flare unpredictably - they handle light sources in the frame reasonably well, but flare badly when there are light sources just outside the frame - and this is hard to predict when it's happening with a rangefinder; the Planar is very flare resistant but is mechanically flaky; and the Hex has much lower contrast and less well controlled spherical aberration, but in my opinion is the best constructed of all of them. There is much internet discussion about the Hex not focusing accurately on Leica Ms, but in my experience you need to periodically have all your lenses and bodies properly matched and adjusted to make sure they focus just right together.

I agree that ergonomics are important - I like the latest Summicron and the Hexanon, but don't like the Planar or the 50 Summilux asph because I don't like focus tabs.

The main reasons to get a 50 Summilux asph include that it is a stop faster, has higher contrast, and a familial look, contrast and colour transmission that matches other Leica asph lenses, than the Hexanon.

Marty

PS 1,111 posts - cool . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom