Anyone have Erwin Puts' M-Hexanon lens reviews archived?

amin_sabet

amin_sabet

Established
Local time
1:13 PM
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
73
I can't find them on his site or elsewhere, but I've found several references to them online. Since the M-Hexanon 50/2 is my only RF lens, I'm trying to find everything on it that I can.
 
I don't recall much mention of the 50/2 Hexanon M when he reviewed the camera but he did mention testing the 35/2 Hexanon M. I would take his review with a big grain of salt since he was rather fixated in back focus difference which seemed to affect optical performance at least in his testing. I've found that the Hexar RF's rangefinder can be calibrated to match my Leica and in doing so performance of the Hexanon equals or exceeds the current Summicron M. When Popular Photography reviewed the lenses in 2000, they said they were the best M lenses to date. Your milage may vary.
 
Last edited:
A little off topic, but I've found searching flickr for lenses the best way for me to decide if I like the character of a lens. Zeiss, hexanon, leica...I think they all have a little different character.

In general the zeiss (except for the 50 1.5) have a consistent character across focal lengths, and all the hexanons seem to have a similar character too. I find Leica varries a lot in character, summilux is different than summicron than the new summarits, vintage is different than aspherical, and the noctilux is its own beast completely. Voightlander makes great lenses too but to my taste, Zeiss and Leica are what I like the most.

Anyway, I think we're at the point where all these lenses are roughly at par for quality and users pick according to taste and budget and purpose. I hope this helps.
 
awilder said:
I don't recall much mention of the 50/2 Hexanon M when he reviewed the camera but he did mention testing the 35/2 Hexanon M. I would take his review with a big grain of salt since he was rather fixated in back focus difference which seemed to affect optical performance at least in his testing. I've found that the Hexar RF's rangefinder can be calibrated to match my Leica and in doing so performance of the Hexanon equals or exceeds the current Summicron M. When Popular Photography reviewed the lenses in 2000, they said they were the best M lenses to date. Your milage may vary.
Click to expand...
I can see from what he has on his current site that he is fixated on the differences you mentioned. However, I've seen people reference him for some positive statements about the lens, and I'd like to see any thorough review of this lens, even a biased one. Certainly I'll take it with a grain of salt. Just hoping for an interesting read.

sirius said:
A little off topic, but I've found searching flickr for lenses the best way for me to decide if I like the character of a lens. Zeiss, hexanon, leica...I think they all have a little different character...users pick according to taste and budget and purpose. I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. That's exactly what I did. Actually, after viewing all the Flickr images I liked the Hexanon character best. Spooked a bit by the inconsistent reports of focus issues, I set out to buy the Zeiss anyway. Then I found a great price on the Hexanon and bought that after all. I wonder whether the popularity of the Planar 50/2 is bringing down the used M-Hexanon 50/2 prices a bit. Could just be the economy I suppose.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the popularity of the Planar is going to limit the top price of a Hexanon to about $450 considering the Planars usually go for about $500. Both are good alternatives to the Summicron but I think the Hexanon's sturdier built than the Planar.
 
Erwin Puts hasn't commented on the 50/2 Hexanon that I'm aware. But if he did, it would be a case of condemning with faint praise, I think. Seems to be a pattern with him on non-Leica stuff.
 
Some info I gathered before I sold off a new M-Hexanon 50mm as it could not be coded:

Erwin Puts views on lenses better than Leica's, e.g. Canon 300 f2.8 IS, Konica Hexanon 50 f2, Hexanon 35 f2, Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5!

Stephen Gandy from CameraQuest: An ODD thing about these lenses is that if you put them side by side their Leica equivalents, the Konica lenses appear to be the better made with heavier construction! OK, I know it's Leica heresy even to suggest such a possibility, but try putting the new Konica M lenses side by side current lens offerings from Solms, and draw your own conclusions.

Colin Jago (Auspiscious Dragon): 50mm f2 KM mount - 1999. Very highly regarded.

Robert Hitt: Konica had a peculiar, almost dilettante attitude to lens production. Almost Leica-like in some ways with the limited production runs. Hexanon has always been of the highest quality. During their production heyday years the Hexanon lenses were used by the Japanese Ministry of Industry as the reference standard by which the quality of all other manufacturers' lenses were judged. There are other Japanese companies that make extremely high quality glass in limited quantity that fit Leica, the Y.K. Optical Company that makes the Kobalux lenses comes to mind.
 
Hacker said:
Erwin Puts views on lenses better than Leica's, e.g. Canon 300 f2.8 IS, Konica Hexanon 50 f2, Hexanon 35 f2, Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5!
Click to expand...

I've seen that line in a number of places. I know he no longer considers the Nokton better than the Leica equivalent (ever since the 50 Lux ASPH), and I haven't found a thing from him about the Hexanon 50.
 
awilder said:
I agree that the popularity of the Planar is going to limit the top price of a Hexanon to about $450 considering the Planars usually go for about $500. Both are good alternatives to the Summicron but I think the Hexanon's sturdier built than the Planar.
Click to expand...

Since the gray market for the Zeiss Planar dried up, the used price seems to have gone up over $550. At least that's all I was able to find when looking last week.
 
Last edited:
Erwin Puts may be over biased towards Leica, but his tests are special. The writing and grammar sometimes a little off, due to his Major First Language. Dutch. I speak and write similar due to influence of a similar language..
Puts mentioned in one of the archived pieces, that Japanese lenses exhibited more pronounced grain than Leica.
I discovered this in many professional assignments when same film(batch and type) were used side by side!
My Pentax Takumars, Nikkors and Canon lenses were sometimes slightly to major effect grainier.
Strange until Puts, I had no reasonable reference to prove this!
Thank You Erwin.
 
I recall he found it really difficult to admit CV's 50/f1.5 was as good or better than Leica's offering at the time ... he has removed that one from his site too
 
Sparrow said:
I recall he found it really difficult to admit CV's 50/f1.5 was as good or better than Leica's offering at the time ... he has removed that one from his site too
Click to expand...

He said : "...the Nokton 1.5/50mm, a quite large design to help suppress aberrations. It is definitely an improvement over the Summilux-M designs wide open, with a larger area of good definition"

Look here :
https://web.archive.org/web/20080923170648/http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/hslenses.html

Complete test (with other voigtlander) :
https://web.archive.org/web/20050205062217/http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html
 
Last edited:
ah! ... sorry, I looked just the other day and couldn't find that ... he does sort of play it down though, having difficulty admitting it all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom