galavanter
Established
Gid said:
I figured you were busy taking photographs. Mine arrived in the US in 3 days as well. Unfortunately I'm on the road so I don't have it yet. I had the same excellent experience dealing with Noriaki. I wanted to ask him where he is getting these things! Thanks for the examples. I can't wait to try mine out on the R-D1.
Jim
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I was waiting to get enough money by the end of the auction. Now I find out why it's gone. Somebody spilled the beans!! :bang:
galavanter
Established
Gabriel M.A. said:
Oh that one sold days ago! There was at least one or two more after that. You missed those too. I think "newbies" got them.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
There's another one listed there right now. He must have quite the source of supply, given this is a "rare lens with only 1,000 made".
...Mike
...Mike
venchka
Veteran
Someday I will regret passing these up. I picture one semi-permanently attached to one of my Canon bodies. Oh well. I already have a couple of nice 35mm lenses. Isn't that enough?
espressogeek
Well-known
I just picked up one does that make me a bad person? I figure how many times do I get to own 1 of 1000 or anything in this life? I can't wait to compare it to my zeiss 35/2 ZM.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I've just received mine. My comparison is going to be with the M-Hexanon 35/2 from the same stable.
...Mike
P.S. A quick shot of the new lens...
...Mike
P.S. A quick shot of the new lens...
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yeah, I find it curious.mfunnell said:
If you ever decide to let go of the M-Hexanon, let me know!
galavanter
Established
#901 here. It is a solid little lens. I bought this because I had a bad experience buying a used V3 Summicron. It had oil on the blades and a sticky aperture and I had to send it off to DAG. Buying 35 year old lenses has its risks.
I began reading about the Hexanon lenses and decided to give them a try. Then I happened upon this UC, a lens I didn't even now existed. It is nice to have a brand new (V4) lens with solid click stops (doesn't move a hair past f2 or f16 like my 1972 Summicron). And what does a new Leica cost, a couple grand? Asph? Not for me thanks.
One thing I noticed that Dante didn't take note of is the travel of the focus tab from closeup to infinity. It's just about exactly 90 degrees, kinda equidistantly
divided between each side of the bottom (6 o'clock) of the lens.
I like this as opposed to the V3 Summicron I have, which has about 135 degrees travel, much too far up and over as you focus closer. I have to change the position of my finger. I feel like I could hurt myself, maybe flip upside down I am still learning how to use these tabs but I prefer the shorter travel of the Hexanon, even though it doesn't focus quite as close.
Looks good (but larger than life) on the Hexar Mike. I have been tempted by that camera. Espressogeek I would like to see your comparison shots when you can.
Jim
Oh yeah here's yet another one (St. Paddy's edition) with your name on it Gabriel:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Konica-UC-HEXAN...38743QQcategoryZ30039QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem
I find it funny that you took the time to publicly chastise me for what you viewed (rather childishly) as my ruining your opportunity to purchase this lens, and yet you haven't purchased one of the many listings which have followed.
I began reading about the Hexanon lenses and decided to give them a try. Then I happened upon this UC, a lens I didn't even now existed. It is nice to have a brand new (V4) lens with solid click stops (doesn't move a hair past f2 or f16 like my 1972 Summicron). And what does a new Leica cost, a couple grand? Asph? Not for me thanks.
One thing I noticed that Dante didn't take note of is the travel of the focus tab from closeup to infinity. It's just about exactly 90 degrees, kinda equidistantly
divided between each side of the bottom (6 o'clock) of the lens.
I like this as opposed to the V3 Summicron I have, which has about 135 degrees travel, much too far up and over as you focus closer. I have to change the position of my finger. I feel like I could hurt myself, maybe flip upside down
I am still learning how to use these tabs but I prefer the shorter travel of the Hexanon, even though it doesn't focus quite as close.Looks good (but larger than life) on the Hexar Mike. I have been tempted by that camera. Espressogeek I would like to see your comparison shots when you can.
Jim
Oh yeah here's yet another one (St. Paddy's edition) with your name on it Gabriel:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Konica-UC-HEXAN...38743QQcategoryZ30039QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem
I find it funny that you took the time to publicly chastise me for what you viewed (rather childishly) as my ruining your opportunity to purchase this lens, and yet you haven't purchased one of the many listings which have followed.
Last edited:
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'm curious to see how it performs wide open and stopped down a just couple of stops with the same subject. The optical layout is very similar to the 35/1.8 Nikkor-W for their RF cameras. I briefly tried that Nikkor last year which came with the 2005 SP but found wide open it was a bit softer than the V4 'cron due to a sort of veiling softness from what I assume was inherent aberration. Other users of that lens have posted much better results with that lens so maybe mine was simply sub-par. I saw Dante's article on the UC Hexanon and it has a similar veiling quality wide open that disapears when stopped down.
espressogeek
Well-known
I have not done any scientific testing but I have a few shots to post. First off, wide open and then 2.8 .
Then another one at 2.8 this time with some lens flare.
Next Konica at F2 focused on left glasses lens.
Full Image
and crop
Next Zeiss 35/2 ZM at F2 focused same.
Full image
and crop
The UC is about half the size of the ZM . It weighs a LOT less as well and the hood is nicer. The Zeiss, at least at full aperture, zeems to be sharper and have a bit more contrast. Here is another one of the zeiss at f2 just to show how amazing it is.
Full
and crop
The zeiss is an amazing lens. The little UC is too but it is a big softer and more gentle. I wouldnt say its fuzzy and I could be completely wrong. Its definitly an interesting look.
Then another one at 2.8 this time with some lens flare.
Next Konica at F2 focused on left glasses lens.
Full Image
and crop
Next Zeiss 35/2 ZM at F2 focused same.
Full image
and crop
The UC is about half the size of the ZM . It weighs a LOT less as well and the hood is nicer. The Zeiss, at least at full aperture, zeems to be sharper and have a bit more contrast. Here is another one of the zeiss at f2 just to show how amazing it is.
Full
and crop
The zeiss is an amazing lens. The little UC is too but it is a big softer and more gentle. I wouldnt say its fuzzy and I could be completely wrong. Its definitly an interesting look.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Hey, hey, no crowding, m'man!Gabriel M.A. said:Yeah, I find it curious.
If you ever decide to let go of the M-Hexanon, let me know!
Actually, I'm sort-of holding out for a 17-35mm M-Hex "duallie", and I'm happy as a pup with my 28. But you know about temptation...
- Barrett (potentially ruining my "gearhead-ascetic" rep on RFf)
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
exspressogeek: Allowing for the limitations of Web images, it all looks pretty good to me from here.
- Barrett
- Barrett
espressogeek
Well-known
Sorry the pictures are not more artistic but I just got it. You know how it is. I will work it out a bit more in its preferred enviornment.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks for the shots. The comparison crops wide with the ZI are interesting as the ZI has a tiny bit more snap to the sharpness/contrast but that doesn't surprise me based on the design differences. The f/2 and f/2.8 UC comparisons were also interesting in that at f/2 sharpness isn't much less than f/2.8. Veiling softness at f/2 does not seem present like my sample of the 35/1.8 W-Nikkor C. I'm curious to see how sharp the lens really gets, say f/4 or f/5.6 where it should be at it's peak.
espressogeek
Well-known
I will take it out tomorrow and do one of my other favorite test shots overlooking nashville. I will shoot it one stop apart up to say f11 or so and post the results.
It is definitly sharp enough for anything I want to do with it. What impresses me is the size and build. What impresses me about the zeiss is that extra snap and it still having the smooth bokeh. I would not expect those two traits to go hand in hand.
It is definitly sharp enough for anything I want to do with it. What impresses me is the size and build. What impresses me about the zeiss is that extra snap and it still having the smooth bokeh. I would not expect those two traits to go hand in hand.
ferider
Veteran
espressogeek: thank you very much for the comparison. UC results do indeed look like Summicron results.
Because of your first photo however (f2 with forest back ground), I am still undecided. The double lines
in the OOF trees bother me. Do you know how it behaves wide open with point light sources in the background ?
Thanks (also to the model),
Roland.
Because of your first photo however (f2 with forest back ground), I am still undecided. The double lines
in the OOF trees bother me. Do you know how it behaves wide open with point light sources in the background ?
Thanks (also to the model),
Roland.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
According to the Bureau of Meteorology, Hell is unlikely to freeze over any time soonGabriel M.A. said:If you ever decide to let go of the M-Hexanon, let me know!
...Mike
