50mm Summicron v3 vs M-Hexanon

Benjamin Marks said:
it seems pretty obvious, if there are metal pieces glued together inside the lens, that build quality is not the same as a Summicron.
Click to expand...
Not obvious at all to me why this should be so.

If this was indeed done at construction time (and not as a consequence of a prior 'repair') there can be sound engineering decisions behind this.

Heck, a Summicron has elements cemented together, and I don't think there are many who'll argue a Lensbaby is better..
 
05060026.jpg


I've been using the 50 Hexanon as my only 50 and primary lens for years, and while it does have its qualities, it's not without weaknesses. It exhibits noticeable barrel distortion, the field isn't even close to flat and wide open there's appreciable light fall off in the corners. It's far from clinical in its rendition, which is perhaps its greatest strengths. Wide open it's a pretty lens, with outstanding bokeh, but bitingly sharp it isn't. It seems optimized for fairly close work - under 2 meters - between F2.8 and F4. By F11, sharpness decreases noticeably, and at F16 the rendition is just blah.

05060033.jpg


The 50 Hex is a certainly a good value and a lovely lens to shoot with, but I'm not sure it lives up to the internet hype, which never seems to be much more specific than 'buy one'. I've no perspective on how it compares to any of the Leica 50s. Perhaps they are worse, but I'd be interested to know how the various Leica 50s compare on the specific points on which the Hex is weak.

05100027.jpg


All above shots, 50 Hex, M6TTL, FP4, Rodinal
 
HA! Guilty as charged

HA! Guilty as charged

infrequent said:
it's always funny when leica fanboys accuse others of drinking the kool-aid!
Click to expand...

Yeah. Guilty as charged vis the fan-boy kool-aid remark. Look, the reason I said "inferior" as to the glue is that I want to make an adjustment to the lens that I cannot make (or my tech can't make) with retaining rings glued down. And true, I don't know whether the lens came from the factory glued or whether this was the work of an enterprising fan of the adhesive industry. My point is that these lenses are mostly not available new and so any prospective purchaser would do well to check the lens out for its intended purpose before laying down any cash.

Oh, and for the record, I'm an equal opportunity fan-boy. I have a lot of lenses that I have been able to have adjusted to work great with the M8. The non-Leica ones are a Canon 50/1.5, a 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar, a 40mm Contax G lens converted to M-mount, a 50/3.5 Heliar-S in a hacked Kiev-to-M adapter -- for me, it's about image quality and the ability to make the lenses do what I want them to. In the case of the Hexanon, whether because of my specific sample or otherwise, I have not been able to make the lens do what I want it to. Hence the word of caution.

Ben

Ben
 
Last edited:
Interesting observations Ben and Matt. I cannot address the barrel distortion or light fall-off issues directly, but I'll note that light fall off has never been a problem w/ my M-Hexanon, and I shoot it wide open a lot. Ditto for barrel distortion.

Let me address sharpness and contrast, as I have tested fairly carefully for these variables in side by side comparisons under equal conditions. In my testing, the Summicron edged out the the M-Hexanon in these two areas, particularly wrt contrast. The differences, however, were really minimal, and not worth the price difference to me. I posted sample photos some time back, and most posters made similar observations about the lenses (sorry, I've since taken the samples down).

Build quality among these lenses, in my experience, is excellent, and I cannot really fault either one in this regard. No focus issues w/ the Hex for me, it's too bad you could not get yours to work for you Ben.

Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself. Both are fine lenses. And a final disclaimer: I try not to drink the kool-aid, and that is why I test my lenses from time to time (though I'm beginning to think formal tests are a waste of time for me, I'm better off making observations based on real-world experience).
 
ben,

I understand where you are coming from. I have to admit that when it comes to judging the build quality of the hex, it's a cursory one based on handling and feel. the bloody thing is solid! but I can only compare it to SLR lenses and some CV glass.
 
or... you could buy my dr ,-)

but since you weren't asking for anything in that direction, i must join the hex choir, it's bloody fantastic!
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Let me play the contrarian. I bought a 50 Hexanon-M in very nice cosmetic shape from a fellow RFF'er. Could not get it to play nice with my M8: front focus by at least an inch and a half when wide open. Sent it to Don Goldberg. He reported that there were metal pieces loc-tited together inside the lens, which prevented adjusting the focus on the lens. I recently read of someone in the UK with the same problem, who authorized his mech to use the necessary force to take the lens apart. Upon doing so, the mech reportedly found two thin shims in front of the rear element. Removal of one shim reportedly improved the focus issue. I have a different camera tech working on the lens right now to see whether this is the case with my lens. So: I know the Hex lenses have a lot of fans and I know that there are folks getting great results from them. But I have not drunk the kool-aid when it comes to "just as good as a Summicron, but costs less." A) Make sure you have a return privilege if the lens doesn't work well with your system and B) it seems pretty obvious, if there are metal pieces glued together inside the lens, that build quality is not the same as a Summicron. To echo something that was said above, if you want Summicron-like quality for less money, try the Zeiss Planar-M lens.

Ben Marks
Click to expand...

The shims may have been installed aftermarket in an attempt to have the lens focus properly on a Konica M body. There were serious quality problems with the Konica bodies regarding flange to film spacing. Leitz lenses, in good calibration, wouldn't focus on some of the Konica bodies.

Gluing shims in place doesn't strike me as a bad idea - it will keep them where they belong. A shim doesn't provide strength, just sets a distance.

It might be an interesting exercise to run focus tests (wide open, closest focus, camera on a tripod) with all the lenses one has. You might be surprised at the results.

Then try checking you lightmeters/camera meters against one another.
 
There were serious quality problems with the Konica bodies regarding flange to film spacing.
Click to expand...

No, that's an internet myth. 🙂

The specs for the FFD (flange focal depth) of Hexar RF bodies is slightly different than that of Leica M bodies, and in some cases it could cause back focus issues. But not, it should be pointed out, with a 50mm lens. That is usually the result of RF adjustment; a problem which affect can Leica a Leica body even when using Leica lenses.

Leica owners tend to blame Konica gear whenever there's a problem mixing the two brands, which is understandable, but still incorrect.
 
kevin m said:
Leica owners tend to blame Konica gear whenever there's a problem mixing the two brands, which is understandable, but still incorrect.
Click to expand...

In this case it isn't the shims that are glued, it's the retaining ring holding the rear group of elements in place. Apologies if I was unclear.

In this case, I have 25 or thirty lenses of various brands that focus just fine on an M8 and one (the 50 M-Hexanon) which back focuses as I stop down (I said front-focus above -- incorrect as the attached photos will show). Attached are jpgs of the Hex at 2.0, 2.8, 4.0. Point of indicated focus should be on the "9" inch mark. Area of best focus is just behind this at 2.0 and moves backwards as the lens is stopped down. M8, ISO 160, handheld, FWIW. Silly, really, to take pictures of rulers, but there you are.

Ben
 

Attachments

  • Hex50(2-0).jpg
    Hex50(2-0).jpg
    125.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Hex50(2.8).jpg
    Hex50(2.8).jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Hex50(4-0).jpg
    Hex50(4-0).jpg
    122.9 KB · Views: 0
i think dante stella got his 50mm m-hexanon adjusted just fine for the m8. maybe send him a message?
 
kevin m said:
No, that's an internet myth. 🙂

The specs for the FFD (flange focal depth) of Hexar RF bodies is slightly different than that of Leica M bodies, and in some cases it could cause back focus issues. But not, it should be pointed out, with a 50mm lens. That is usually the result of RF adjustment; a problem which affect can Leica a Leica body even when using Leica lenses.

Leica owners tend to blame Konica gear whenever there's a problem mixing the two brands, which is understandable, but still incorrect.
Click to expand...




We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

IMHO there seem to be quite a number of people who had their Konica M focus problems sorted out with warranty repairs. As it happens, I've had occasion to run focus tests on four different Hexanon-M 50mm lenses (three NIB, one almost so) and all were dead on the money with several M3's and M6's.

Reasonable men may differ, of course.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here is my take on things. I know, some might get a bit upset at this, but nothing personal. I think, and this is limited to my gear and my experience, that some people either have diffective gear or have hard time focusing Rf camera/lens. I have seen this with several lenses - Hexanons and Canon 50/1.2 seem to be most frequent ones. Well, I have a Canon 50/1.2. I have 4 Hexanon lenses, I also have some other "hard to focus lenses, like CV 35/1.2, Jupiter-9 85/2 and Nikkor 105/2.5. I used them all on Bessa R2m, Hexar RF , Leica M6 (this one was CLA'd and calibrated to LEICA, not Hexanon, standard by DAG) and M3 (was ClA'd by Youxin). All these lenses work just fine on all these cameras, no matter what the combo is and all wide open - close or far. So, to me this whole "Hexanons dont work on Leica" or the other way around, or Canon 50/1.2 is a poor lens wide open, or similar claims - lead to what I said above - you have diffective or out of adjustment gear, or RF is not for you and you should get an AF camera. This is not to upset anyone - it's just a fact - some people just can't focus RF camera well. So, don't get all bent out of shape.
Here is a wide open Hexanon shot:
2439033711_237a4d8f6a_o.jpg


here is a wide open Canon 50/1.2 shot:
2439877816_9edf671739_o.jpg


here is a wide open J-9 shot:
2544225077_6081954d48_b.jpg


and here is a CV 35/1.2 wide open shot:
2825175692_eb089c2e67_o.jpg


all show that no matter what lens/camera is used - all work fine.
To bring it back on topic - it doesn't matter what you get as long as you like the results - if possible get both lense,s try them, see which one delivers results you like, handles well, etc and sell the other one. Thats what I did - tried several Summicrons, Planar, Hexanon and kept Hexanon. But your taste may be different. I'd look at some more pics from both lenses on flickr and see what you like better. But at least from economical side - nothing beats Hexanon!
 
I would rather use a Summicron Version 1 over a Hexanon when it comes to portraits. I have tried out over 30 [maybe 40] 50mm RF lenses, and I happen to like the older lenses. Preference can be a personal choice.

What is "best" ?
What is "useful for a specific situation"?

Sometimes, these two cases do not coincide.
 
Last edited:
Raid: we must, of course, respect one another's personal choices in matters of taste. But: has no one else experienced the back-focus issues that I have seen in this lens when stopping down? That is not a matter of taste, it is a fact I can demonstrate with my lens sample. 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. Anyone with learning on the subject?

On another note: Attached is a photo I took this AM with the Hexanon. I could use some help understanding how to insert it in the body of a message, instead of as an attachment. My laughable attempts to search the forum on the subject lead to utterances of oaths and creative Anglo-Saxon phrases as I responded to the forum's search engine's protests of what I was doing wrong and its associated demands.

Here is the RFF gallery URL for the pic I wanted to attach:

showphoto.php


EDIT: (I can see the image's gallery URL in the thread-editor, but not once the message is posted.)

and here is the image itself;
 

Attachments

  • 090608_2039-copy.jpg
    090608_2039-copy.jpg
    73.9 KB · Views: 0
Hi Benjamin,

you need to do

(IMG) .... path to image file .... (/IMG)

and replace round brackets by square ones.

The Hexanon should not shift noticably. And the 50/2 sample I had focused perfectly on all my M bodies. I am guessing that the behavior you observe is specific to your sample.

Regarding the original question, I did exactly like Kevin in post #17.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

IMHO there seem to be quite a number of people who had their Konica M focus problems sorted out with warranty repairs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there were Graybeard, but in the interest of accuracy, I'd wager it was more due to the RF mechanism, and not FFD, as the FFD issue doesn't show itself unless you're using a wide, fast lens, not a 50mm. The depth of focus on a 50mm lens is usually more than enough to cover normal variance in FFD, even accounting for the difference in specs between the Leica M and the Hexar RF. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom