kzphoto
Well-known
I've seen that there's a UC 35/2 M-hexanon and the regular 35/2 M-hexanon on various web sites. Are there any differences between the two other than the mount? Any side-by-side comparison photos?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Well, you can find an article on the UC-Hexanon on Dante Stellas site, here.
To complicate things further, there is another 35/2.0 modern screw mount lens from Konica, the non-UC and non-M Hexanon. You can find an article about this on my site, here. I have a number of shots taken with the non-UC lens on my website and in the Gallery here.
On the M-Hexanon, there's a Flickr-pool. On any of the others as well I guess, have a look.
To complicate things further, there is another 35/2.0 modern screw mount lens from Konica, the non-UC and non-M Hexanon. You can find an article about this on my site, here. I have a number of shots taken with the non-UC lens on my website and in the Gallery here.
On the M-Hexanon, there's a Flickr-pool. On any of the others as well I guess, have a look.
peter_n
Veteran
The UC-Hexanon is tiny. It's much smaller than the regular Konica 35/2. It also has a very small tab which if you have big hands would be a problem to use. At least it was for me. It's closest focus is 0.9M, not sure what closest focus is for the other 35/2. It does make beautiful images, but you should check out flickr to take a look at the images from both lenses. I used both briefly and sold both but the UC-Hexanon is a little jewel; the build quality is unreal even accounting for the level of quality associated with Konica lenses.
Krosya
Konicaze
I have M-Hexanon 35/2 and used to have UC -Hex. as was pointed out - UC is smaller. Both are well built. UC is LTM. I kept M-Hex as it focuses closer - to 0.7m, sharper and has smoother bokeh. Both lenses are hard to find.
Here are some pics from my M-Hex 35/2:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69304
and here are from UC-Hex 35/2:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63237
Here are some pics from my M-Hex 35/2:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69304
and here are from UC-Hex 35/2:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63237
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I saw that thread before Krosya, great shots. Funny: someone halfway comments the UC-Hex reminds him of the 35/1.8 Nikkor he owns: These lenses are close to identical in their optical design.
Here's one from my lens, shot with an M8:
Here's one from my lens, shot with an M8:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Johan: I read your blog entry on the 35/2 LTM (non-UC); do you or anyone have photos made with it? Or comments about it's performance?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Well, there is a number on the gallery here:
Brussels, on Fomapan 200
Danoescha, Leica M8
Yvette, Leica M8
And I think I have some more at Flickr already as well. For sure there's a number of them in my files, I'm nearly done with scanning the eleven rolls I shot during my eight day trip to England last month. I will be posting some of these in the gallery as well and do not mind dropping you a line / PM when I do.
EDIT: on performance: I love this lens. Build quality (again) is very high and the lens is very well corrected, no strange things happening in OOF areas. Focus throw is short, click stops (and intermittent click stops) are very precise. It is hard to make it flare. I have made a hood for it from a 46mm filter ring and a 52mm step up ring and that does the job just fine. I think it renders a more classic image than the UC-Hex, because not all elements are coated. Haven't got a clue how many of them are, though.
EDIT: on performance: I love this lens. Build quality (again) is very high and the lens is very well corrected, no strange things happening in OOF areas. Focus throw is short, click stops (and intermittent click stops) are very precise. It is hard to make it flare. I have made a hood for it from a 46mm filter ring and a 52mm step up ring and that does the job just fine. I think it renders a more classic image than the UC-Hex, because not all elements are coated. Haven't got a clue how many of them are, though.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Wow, they are probably all excellent lenses, none that I have ever owned yet.
The UC seems to take images very close to those I have taken with my Hexar AFs.
The UC seems to take images very close to those I have taken with my Hexar AFs.
ferider
Veteran
There are two lines of 35mm Hexanons,
a) the double Gauss M mount lens (similar to a Summicron),
b) several variants of the UC 35/2, that are originally derived from the Nikkor 35/1.8. The older LTM version that CLE-RF mentions, the UC, and finally the lens of the Hexar AF are part of that lineage.
Note that a) has min. focus of 0.7m.
Roland.
a) the double Gauss M mount lens (similar to a Summicron),
b) several variants of the UC 35/2, that are originally derived from the Nikkor 35/1.8. The older LTM version that CLE-RF mentions, the UC, and finally the lens of the Hexar AF are part of that lineage.
Note that a) has min. focus of 0.7m.
Roland.
venchka
Veteran
I never met a Konica lens I didn't like. I use 3.