50mm Summicron v3 vs M-Hexanon

of course it's a crap lens. seriously folks...let's keep the prices low!

@raid - which other 50 would you recommend for portraiture? I am guessing a sonnar design would be the way to go?
 
I think that the truth about the roll-out of the Konica RF lenses is that it is a little of both. It sounds like the manufacturing tolerances were not quite up to snuff, based on the number of folks who had their lenses adjusted after purchase. It seems reasonable that if this were the case that a certain number of the lenses would be just fine and some would be off. At least this would explain the differing subjective accounts on the web. In my case, the camera's RF mechanism is on (that is focuses accurately, repeatedly, with a large number of lenses, including some that have a notoriously shallow depth-of-focus (90AA, 75/1.4, 50/1 etc.). So I guess it's my lens.

BTW - my picture posting mystery continues -- I did originally try to post the picture by clicking on the little "Insert Image" icon above, which uses the square brackets in HTML . . . no joy. The path to the image file was the web page of the image in the RFF gallery. What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
@Benjamin - seriously let's stop talking about strawmen and see some proof. who are these number of people who had to adjust their lenses after purchase? sounds like the same bs about the film to flange distance of the hexar.
 
The tendency to back-focus strikes me as a characteristic of an optical formula (e.g. the recent Zeiss C-Sonnar f:1.5) rather than a problem inherent in one sample of a lens.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of any other instances of a Hexanon 50 front or back focusing when stopped down, so it appears more likely that it is a problem with your sample.

I think that the truth about the roll-out of the Konica RF lenses is that it is a little of both.
Click to expand...

The desire to find "common ground" is usually admirable, but does no good when trying to solve what is a purely technical issue. There is enough sample to sample variation in RF mechanisms between Leica M bodies to make it a potential trouble-spot, (I don't think any two of my M-body rangefinders have ever completely "agreed"...) nevermind throwing in the variable of another manufacturer. That said, a Hexar RF and a Leica M adjusted to the same specs should both focus the full range of M lenses.

It sounds like the manufacturing tolerances were not quite up to snuff, based on the number of folks who had their lenses adjusted after purchase. It seems reasonable that if this were the case that a certain number of the lenses would be just fine and some would be off. At least this would explain the differing subjective accounts on the web.
Click to expand...

"Subjective" is the key word here. People who have only a vague understanding of the technical issues involved are likely to jump to erroneous conclusions, based more on their own emotions and prejudices rather than any technical merit.
 
Ah. The straw man. Helas! I am cut to the quick. "Let's see some proof?" Good god, man it isn't murder with the candlestick in the drawing room -- it's cameras. Proof of what? That there was an internet kerfuffle from folks who thought they had a problem? I leave the Google results as an exercise for the student. Forget "proof", whatever that is, and calm thyself young one.

Dante Stella has some nice measurements on his website at http://www.dantestella.com/technical/flange.html#hexar which seem to show that when mixing and matching Konica and Leica bodies and lenses it all should work most of the time, except when it doesn't. His inquiries (and Dante, by the way, if you ever read this, I am most impressed with the amount of effort you put into finding an answer for this question) seem to suggest that Leica and Konica engineers think about these things in different ways -- which shouldn't be a surprise.

Now: who has one of these perfectly performing 50 M-Hexanon's tha that they want to sell me? The one I have is obviously the victim of cruel experiments at the hands of the ham-handed.


Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom