Leicaflex SL Summicron-R 50mm vs M3 Konica M-Hexanon 50mm

[shawn]

I was testing out a new to me Leicaflex SL with a v2 Summicron-R 50mm and decided to finish up a roll I had in the M3. I used the Konica M-Hexanon 50mm on the M3 as it is said to be a Summicron (M mount) clone and I was curious how these two would compare. Both cameras loaded with Fomapan 200, developed in the same tank together, scanned the same and with same settings. Both images shot at same aperture/shutter speed.

I was not expecting this much of a difference between the two as far as sharpness and contrast. It is to the point that I was suspecting focus calibration errors on the Konica.

However, when looking at something closer in the point of focus is almost the same between them and checking intermediate range shots I see the same.

FWIW, really enjoying the SL. With the 50mm f2 on the camera the viewfinder has higher magnification than the M3 and is brighter. Meter is accurate up to around EV12 or so and then it overexposes. Need to add a diode into the battery compartment to drop voltage down and then it should be fine. The CRIS MR-9 does not fit in the SL. Fits a SL2 though and fixes the same overexposure on that meter.

Shawn

 

[Evergreen States]

In the last set it looks to me as though the sun was moving between clouds and the Summicron R got the benefit of directional sunlight while the sun retreated by the time you got out the M Hexanon. It's unlikely that this explains all of the difference, but it does make some difference. Directional light is one of the best sharpeners there is.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Neither side impresses me much, but Fomapan 200 doesn't blow my skirt up either. It's not particularly sharp and contrast tends to be low.

However, by a small margin - at least to my eye - the first half of this group tends to favor the right as to overall resolution, but by the 5th set resolution seems to noticeably favor those images on the left. From top-to-bottom I don't see a whole lot of difference in contrast on either side (but that's likely the film you used).

it's my guess the lens used on the right has issues - haze, fungus, or both.

You didn't say which side is which.

 

[shawn]

Neither lens has haze or fungus, I double checked right before posting as I suspected that too. First two images (and the corresponding zooms) the Summicron is on the right, the rest it is on the left.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

Yes, light was shifting so it is possible the Summicron had an advantage on the last one. But the sun was behind the tree so I’m not sure how much directional light would have sharpened the bark since it was in shade in both cases.

Shawn

 

[das]

There is no way, objectively, that an old Summicron R SLR lens is sharper or better performing than the M Hexanon.

 

[steveyork]

Although the Leicaflex series is well damped, I think shutter vibration will make a bigger difference then the relative optics of the lenses.

 

[Beemermark]

There is no way, objectively, that an old Summicron R SLR lens is sharper or better performing than the M Hexanon.

I bought into the Hexar RF system when first introduced. Everyone raved about the lenses (because they were way,way cheaper than the real thing and VC hadn't yet introduced lenses) but I found them mediocre at best. My version 2 Summicron-M was way better than the Konica 50mm. Do you have any basis for your statement above? Especially since that old Summicron-R was produced around the same time as the Konica lenses.

 

[shawn]

I scanned the M3/Konica shots second and wondered if my macro lens focus shifted slightly due to gravity as it wasn't fully extended. To test I just rescanned a few of the M3/Konica shots. I think it did shift slightly as the non-infinity shots are a little closer to the Summicron-R. The infinity shot still shows quite a big difference still though so I think the Konica isn't calibrated properly at the infinity stop. Going forward I will use the macro fully extended and a locking macro rail for fine tuning focus.

These are all comparisons of the rescanned Konica with the original Summicron-R shots. All zoomed in to 100%.

Infinity shot...

Shawn

 

[raid]

Thank you for the comparison, Shawn. I do not own a Summicron-R or the Hexanon-m 50/2. I have a collapsible Hexanon 50mm 2.4 which is known for extra sharpness, and I own 3 Summicron 50/2 in M mount. Both lenses are excellent lenses overall. Many years ago, Roland "Ferider" had a thread on the Hexanon 50-2.4 in which he showed us how super sharp this lens is. Based on his thread I then bought such a lens. The Summicron-R is also highly praised online for its sharpness. My feeling is that any observed differences here may be more due to some settings in the lens comparisons.

 

[shawn]

Thank you for the comparison, Shawn. I do not own a Summicron-R or the Hexanon-m 50/2. I have a collapsible Hexanon 50mm 2.4 which is known for extra sharpness, and I own 3 Summicron 50/2 in M mount. Both lenses are excellent lenses overall. Many years ago, Roland "Ferider" had a thread on the Hexanon 50-2.4 in which he showed us how super sharp this lens is. Based on his thread I then bought such a lens. The Summicron-R is also highly praised online for its sharpness. My feeling is that any observed differences here may be more due to some settings in the lens comparisons.

The Hexanon 50 2.4 is very sharp, I had one for awhile.

For these images they are all set identically. Shot the same, scanned the same way (same settings) and converted the same. The difference on the infinity shots is visible with a loupe on a light table. At some point I will probably compare the M-Hexanon and the Summicron-R on digital but I expect the Summicron-R will have an advantage there due to its flange focal length and it has an image circle that just about covers MF digital and when stopped down does well to the edges. Link to full resolution shot at f8 from https://www.cyberphoto.se/

Shawn

 

[das]

I bought into the Hexar RF system when first introduced. Everyone raved about the lenses (because they were way,way cheaper than the real thing and VC hadn't yet introduced lenses) but I found them mediocre at best. My version 2 Summicron-M was way better than the Konica 50mm. Do you have any basis for your statement above? Especially since that old Summicron-R was produced around the same time as the Konica lenses.

MTFs, for one. Weighted MTF for the Hexanon at f/2 is 0.74, Summicron-R is 0.68. At f/8, Hexanon is 0.87, Summicron-R is 0.85. Photodo.com. I am sorry your Hexanon was not sharp for you. Maybe it was one that was not calibrated for M bodies correctly? I would not be surprised if the Summicron-M were noticeably sharper than the Hexanon -- although those lenses were at drastically different price points.

 

[shawn]

MTFs, for one. Weighted MTF for the Hexanon at f/2 is 0.74, Summicron-R is 0.68. At f/8, Hexanon is 0.87, Summicron-R is 0.85. Photodo.com. I am sorry your Hexanon was not sharp for you. Maybe it was one that was not calibrated for M bodies correctly? I would not be surprised if the Summicron-M were noticeably sharper than the Hexanon -- although those lenses were at drastically different price points.

That site only tests MTF at infinity. Look at the other MTF scores....

Konica M-Hexanon 50mm...


Leica Summicron-R 50mm





So the statement about "There is no way, objectively...." is a little suspect. Esp. when you already mentioned one "Maybe it was one that was not calibrated for M bodies correctly?"


The Summicron-R I shot is sharper than the Konica I shot at Infinity.



Shawn

 

[das]

Where does it say on Photodo's site that the weighted MTFs are for infinity only? I could not locate it on the site, but maybe I missed it. Even assuming that is true, if one lens is better performing at infinity at all apertures, and then all else is the same, then the Konica is, objectively, the better lens? How about vignetting? Bokeh? How about 10 aperture blades versus 6? If you look at the actual MTF graphs from the site, the M-Hex is still better overall across 10/20/40 lp than the Summicron-R at f/2 and f/8. Also, not that this is super relevant, but the Summicron-R cost nearly $1,000 in 1999 money, essentially the same cost a brand-new Hexar RF kit, more than twice what the M-Hex would have cost if you could find it unbundled.

 

[shawn]

Where does it say on Photodo's site that the weighted MTFs are for infinity only? I could not locate it on the site, but maybe I missed it. Even assuming that is true, if one lens is better performing at infinity at all apertures, and then all else is the same, then the Konica is, objectively, the better lens? How about vignetting? Bokeh? How about 10 aperture blades versus 6? If you look at the actual MTF graphs from the site, the M-Hex is still better overall across 10/20/40 lp than the Summicron-R at f/2 and f/8. Also, not that this is super relevant, but the Summicron-R cost nearly $1,000 in 1999 money, essentially the same cost a brand-new Hexar RF kit, more than twice what the M-Hex would have cost if you could find it unbundled.

"So far we have tested lenses only at infinity."

One lens is performing better at Infinity, it just isn't the one you think it is. The difference between looking at numbers on a website and actually shooting both lenses.

Shawn

 

[Freakscene]

If you focused at infinity by turning the focus ring until the ring stops, that will create a problem. The Konica KM lenses don’t have an infinity stop and they all focus past infinity. You need to focus to infinity or everything will be made substantially less sharp.

It is hard to understand where the sources of variation lie, but these look, to me, like studies in focus. In the old days it was always interesting to see prints from enlargers that had been properly aligned and those that had alignment problems, and these days scanning variation is similar. I really like the Leitz BEOON, because once it is all set up, you lock it and it just works.

 

[shawn]

If you focused at infinity by turning the focus ring until the ring stops, that will create a problem. The Konica KM lenses don’t have an infinity stop and they all focus past infinity. You need to focus to infinity or everything will be made substantially less sharp..

Thjis is at the hard stop on my M-Hexanon.



My 90 and 28mm are the same.

Shawn

 

[bluesun267]

I'm still a bit confused about which set of shots belongs to which lens, both in the original post or the follow up image.

But since I have recent extensive experience with both of these lenses, I'll offer my opinion:

The Summicron-R V2 was a real surprise to me. I have 295xxxx from 1978. It's so good it is a close contender to Summicron DR/Rigid in micro-resolution on B/W film. And it has higher contrast than the DR. Beautiful rendering with a shockingly sharp sweet spot at about f5.6 and 15 feet, but even wide open it had me questioning how I shot certain images (this CAN'T have been wide open could it!) Better than the Summicron-M V4 in every aspect, and almost every other 50 I've used before.

On the other hand, Hexanon-M 50 had nice qualities, but was pretty darn bad actually. Soft wide open between 15ft and infinity, softer than the Rokkor MC 50/1.4 and Nikkor 50/1.4 AI at f2-2.8. This was noticed even without comparing to another lens. Close-up and wide open was pretty good though.

Hexanon was passable at F4 and up. I liked its rendering quality. It is such a shame since it's so well built and smooth. The old Topcor LTM 50/2 was sharper at every comparable f-stop and distance and had contrast and color equal to the Hexanon, despite being 40 years older.

I'm hardly a big pixel peeper either, and like I said, I noticed the Hexanon's disability within the course of regular shooting.

 

[shawn]

I'm still a bit confused about which set of shots belongs to which lens, both in the original post or the follow up image.

But since I have recent extensive experience with both of these lenses, I'll offer my opinion:

The Summicron-R V2 was a real surprise to me. I have 295xxxx from 1978. It's so good it is a close contender to Summicron DR/Rigid in micro-resolution on B/W film. And it has higher contrast than the DR. Beautiful rendering with a shockingly sharp sweet spot at about f5.6 and 15 feet, but even wide open it had me questioning how I shot certain images (this CAN'T have been wide open could it!) Better than the Summicron-M V4 in every aspect, and almost every other 50 I've used before.

My Summicron-R is a little earlier than yours 282xxxx from 1977. Sorry for the confusion on the image pairs. Click on any pair and you can see them larger and probably click again to enlarge more. Quite simply, in every case, the sharper side is the Summicron-R. If the file number is shown in the images the lower number is the Summicron-R as I scanned that negative first.

This is to demonstrate the difference at infinity. In these the right image is the Summicron-R. The shutter speed displayed is from the scanning, focal length shown is just due to what was set in the scanning camera, it is not accurate. You should be able to click to see them larger.

Original image

Zoomed at 100%

Zoomed at 200%

The difference seen here is visible on the negatives using a loupe.

Shawn

 

[Freakscene]

Thjis is at the hard stop on my M-Hexanon.



My 90 and 28mm are the same.

Shawn

That is a mechanical stop for the helicoid, there is no adjustable infinity stop and the lenses, as they were manufactured, all focus past infinity.