Adapted Konica 38mm f/1.8 Hexanon to Leica M

das

Well-known
Local time
9:16 AM
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
763
Location
Michigan USA
A shop in Germany was able to adapt for me a 38mm f/1.8 Konica Hexanon from an Auto S3 to rangefinder-coupled Leica M mount. I am still putting the lens through its paces, but here are some initial impressions. TLDR, the 38mm is a really, really good optic for 1966. Although greatly eclipsed in objective performance like all classic rangefinder lenses at this point, I can see why folks at the time spoke so highly of it. Its center sharpness is as good as anything of the era, equal to the Summaron on a 24 mp sensor. It's no Summaron, however. 🙂

https://davidde.com/2021/07/18/review-the-konica-38mm-f-1-8-hexanon/

I will be adding to this as more info comes to light.
 
That’s so cool! I’ve dreamt of having something similar done by MS-optics, but they apparently don’t do conversions any more. Mind if I ask what the ballpark cost was? I’m considering sending them a dead Auto s3 to do the same conversion.
 
A gentleman never asks....

But seriously, the price was competitive with buying any quality 35mm focal length Leica mount rangefinder lens. Feel free to reach out to the shop that did it if you want an estimate.
 
Very cool, appreciate your write-up and your other aritcle about Xenotar 35mm lens designs (W-Nikkor and UC-Hexanon). I've also toyed with some converted lens and they are definitely fiddly and interesting, even if not the most practical from a shooting perspective (MS-Optical Hexar AF > M-Mount, and G Planar 45/2 > M-Mount).
 
Thanks everyone. As many of you know, lens testing/comparison can be a very tedious and time-consuming process. I will update the post when I can get some good comparison shots done. I hope that someone would consider doing one of the 40mm f/1.7 lenses from like the 7sII or the Q-17. I bet those lenses, both of which post-date the 38mm Hex might be real winners. Even perhaps comparable to the Summicron-C!
 
I had MS-Optics convert a 40/1.7 Canon from a QL17 GIII and a 42/1.7 Zuiko from a 35 SP a few years ago, when I refurbished a few of those bodies. In the case of those lenses the bodies were too far gone to resurrect, so I sent them to Japan for conversion. Great little performers! I too find lens testing very tedious, so I didn't bother doing it. The MS Optics ergonomics were very odd/eccentric, I ended up selling both.
 
Would any Konica RF lens be suitable for such a conversion? I have a Konica I, II, IIIM and Auto S3.

I think most lenses could be done theoretically. But the LTM Konica 50mm 1.9 is pretty similar to, if not exactly the same as, the lens that came on the III, so it may be better to track one of those down. It would probably be cheaper.
 
I had MS-Optics convert a 40/1.7 Canon from a QL17 GIII and a 42/1.7 Zuiko from a 35 SP a few years ago, when I refurbished a few of those bodies. In the case of those lenses the bodies were too far gone to resurrect, so I sent them to Japan for conversion. Great little performers! I too find lens testing very tedious, so I didn't bother doing it. The MS Optics ergonomics were very odd/eccentric, I ended up selling both.

That is really neat. I heard that MS optics conversions were a little wonky sometimes.
 
Davidde1000, those samples look indeed promising!


One idea I'd throw into the mix is the necessity of thorough testing of aforementioned RF lenses before plunging into the expense of an M conversion.
I've owned and used enough of these RF cameras (Canonets, Yashica Electros, Konicas, Olympus SP) over the years to note a pretty substantial variation in sharpness among samples of the same lens. These camera manufacturers could not have sold these cameras for the low prices they did without some compromises, and I believe a major one is in the optical QC. This would have been acceptable to most casual, consumer users at the time whereas it would not have passed muster among separate M or screw mount optics. When you get a good sample of these lenses, it can be stunning, but the next one may disappoint.
 
Very good point! I totally agree. I would hope that at $199 in 1973, Konica's QC would have been good, but you never know.

I used another Auto S3 for years on film, and thought the pics were pretty good; but I find that it is pretty hard to get a consistent sense of a lens' true objective optical performance from scanned 35mm negs. So many things can skew the results: the film stock's particular character, bad developing, RAW import settings on PS/LR were not ideal, maybe the shot was slightly out of focus, motion blur, wrong exposure settings, maybe the rangefinder alignment was a little off, etc.). Digital mirrorless can really cut to the chase without burning through a ton of film. But it definitely cannot tell you a good sample from a bad one without a point of reference for sure.

Davidde1000, those samples look indeed promising!


One idea I'd throw into the mix is the necessity of thorough testing of aforementioned RF lenses before plunging into the expense of an M conversion.
I've owned and used enough of these RF cameras (Canonets, Yashica Electros, Konicas, Olympus SP) over the years to note a pretty substantial variation in sharpness among samples of the same lens. These camera manufacturers could not have sold these cameras for the low prices they did without some compromises, and I believe a major one is in the optical QC. This would have been acceptable to most casual, consumer users at the time whereas it would not have passed muster among separate M or screw mount optics. When you get a good sample of these lenses, it can be stunning, but the next one may disappoint.
 
Japanese assembly and QC at that time was quite good, although I would expect some anomalies off the production line I would expect them to be rare. More important in 2021 is how well the lens (or fixed lens RF) was cared for over it's ~50 years of life.
 
Back
Top Bottom