Chrome Hexanon 35/2L vs 35/2 UC-Hexanon?

[Dante_Stella]

Totally correct. And, the UC is a 43mm filter, while the chrome lens is a 46mm filter.

The UC is sharper. The chrome lens is less coated and identical to the Hexar lens. The Hexar corrects the slight focus drift in its AF, but the chrome lens 'suffered' from it, it's really not all that extensive. The UC coating corrected that.

If the UC is "better" with focus shift (as opposed to just shifting the focus to mask the problem as is done on ZM Sonnars), that necessarily means it has less SA (and probably worse bokeh). I haven't seen anyone make the claim that one is sharper than the other. The reality is that a lot of lenses will max out a 24mp sensor, so it may be hard to observe.

If the chrome is 46mm, that would be awesome, since I have pretty much every type of 46mm filter ever made, including redhancers, prisms and nebulas. But I guess I need to send that chrome 43mm B+W filter back to Adorama. 🙂

You can actually manipulate the focus on wideangle screwmount lenses by using different M adapters. I measured 30 of them from many sources, and there is a pretty big spread (0.94-1.02). When the silver one gets here (and assuming it arrives safely), I'll shoot them both against my LensAlign on a 240 and 246, and we can see if there is a focus shift difference.

Dante

 

[Dante_Stella]

Archlich, try a thinner LTM adapter. That will fool the camera into thinking that the lens is focused further than it actually is, since the cam moves faster than the optical unit.

 

[jonmanjiro]

The UC designation in the 1980s on Konica lenses was not in derogation of the fact that most of its other lenses were already multicoated. UC stood for "ultra compact," "ultra coating," and "ultra close (focusing)."

I'd really be surprised if the chrome 35 was not multicoated, since it is the same optic as in the Hexar AF, which is definitely MC. Unless they got Konica to commission a completely different run of lens elements that were SC, which seems highly unlikely. My Hexar and 50/2.4 both have a green sheen on the front element (like Nikon multicoating), and both 35/2s look like they do as well, at least in pictures (and also my hazy memory). I'll report on this when I get both lenses together.

For sure the chrome 35 is also multi coated. I should have written "different multi coating and barrel". Since reading in the UC Hexanon literature somewhere that UC stood for Ultra Coating I've always assumed the difference between the chrome 35 and the UC multi coating was something like the difference between Nikon's "Nikon Integrated Coating" (NIC) and Nikon's "Super Integrated Coating" (SIC). NIC has the green sheen, and SIC, which replaced NIC in the early 2000s, has a purplish greenish multicolored sheen that changes by viewing angle.

But maybe there's no difference in the multi coating at all, and its just marketing!? Let us know what you find.

 

[KoNickon]

I just read this thread and couldn't follow the nomenclature -- "chrome" = the Hexar AF lens? "Black" = what exactly?

Is there no love for the M-Hex 35/2?

 

[Dante_Stella]

I just read this thread and couldn't follow the nomenclature -- "chrome" = the Hexar AF lens? "Black" = what exactly?

Is there no love for the M-Hex 35/2?

Black is the 35/2 screwmount lens from 2000
Chrome is the 35/2 screwmount lens from 1996
(both are Hexar lenses from 1992 in Leica mount)

Ok. So the 35/2 chrome arrived today.
- Green coatings
- More of a Leica feel to the aperture (no friction like the UC; feels like a ball detent)
- Looks like a 10 or 11-blade aperture
- Half stops
- Filter ring is 46mm wide, but it looks like this is due simply to not tapering the lens past the focusing ring
- Chrome looks like Zeiss chrome. Scallops look like the Canon 35/2 or the Kobalux 21.
- With a Leitz LTM adapter, "up" is slightly to the side of vertical, like older lenses.

As to the focus shift on this one, inside 1.2m, it definitely needs to be hiked slightly past the RF focusing point, as in focusing further until the double image almost "breaks." Otherwise, f/2.8 is dead on. Past 1.2m, focus seems fine.

Bokeh is disc at distance.

The hood for this thing is beautiful (the hood is like the UC, but it has a rebate - a cylinder at its rim).

So I'm not seeing, right off the bat, much of note. I'll borrow my brother's lens and examine things in a little more detail.

Dante

 

[Archlich]

Archlich, try a thinner LTM adapter. That will fool the camera into thinking that the lens is focused further than it actually is, since the cam moves faster than the optical unit.

Hi Dante, do you have recommendations? I have been using a Voigtlander one for years...

 

[Dante_Stella]

Hi Dante, do you have recommendations? I have been using a Voigtlander one for years...

Jiyeng, sold by Fotodiox and on Ebay, has a much better than average chance of being thin. Their adapters typically run from 0.95 to 0.99, at least on the 10 or so I measured. In general, off-brand adapters shoot to be a little thin so that lenses always focus to infinity. Leica ones seem to be 1.00 to 1.01. It helps to use a digital micrometer.

Dante

 

[winzenbourg]

I have very little to add to this discussion from a technical perspective, but I've owned both lenses. From an ergonomic standpoint, the UC-Hexanon is my favorite lens ever. The focus throw and aperture clicks are perfect. Conversely, I found the L-Hexanon almost impossible to use. It was too cramped for me and I'd often accidentally move the aperture ring when moving the (rather stiff) focus ring.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Ok. Here you can see how this does at about a meter and f/2.0. Sharp as hell with commensurate massive falloff.

The arguments I've heard about the black one (which I have used extensively myself) are mainly related to ergonomics. If by that one means the ability to focus quickly and roughly correctly, I'd agree. But when you need to precisely focus, tabs are pretty bad. They are usually associated with very fast focusing rates, usually 1/4 turn, which themselves inhibit accuracy.

It's a matter of mechanics: a 35mm lens has very little focus travel. A big 50mm wide focusing ring gives you a 144mm circumference and a 36mm travel if it's a quarter turn from 0.9 to ∞. Every millimeter of ring travel is 1/40 of the front-back travel of the lens, and you are turning it with your index finger.

Now consider how that works when you are using your thumb (your least coordinated finger) to lever against a 12mm scallop, using less "draggy" lubricants. The big advantage of this system is tactile indication for approximate focus, but once you lift it to your eye to use the rangefinder, the tab doesn't confer any particular advantage. This is a great setup for a reportage lens, but the biomechanic limitations probably explain why tabs are almost completely absent from fast lenses, particularly longer ones. For example, ZM "hump" is for distance orientation and not leverage; every ZM lens is designed to be focused by using the ring.

These are, of course, horses for courses - and I own 35mm lenses with and without tabs. But I think the point is that if your budget is 1200 and not 2000, I would not automatically assume you're coming out worse with chrome.

Dante

 

[Dante_Stella]

Also field curvature, as you will see from the almost impossible DOF for f/2.

 

[taomei]

Some of the issue might just be Miyazaki. The MS-Sonnetar only focuses correctly at f/2.8 when the adjuster (which is labeled "coma" but is really focal length) is at "neutral." You can actually set the lens differently to have only the slightest front focus. But maybe the rear element on the Hexar AF lens is too big to allow an adjustment ring.

The Hexar AF sidestepped the focus shift problem by changing the focus with the aperture selected (and in one test I saw, this allowed it to beat the mythic 35 Summicron IV). Compensation allows you to maximize performance at every aperture/distance combination. Unfortunately, LTM lens designs are too simple to make this correction, which is the whole (and novel) point of the Leica 35/1.4 FLE.

Dante

Yes I suspected as such that the AF lens, taken out and directly placed into a helicoid, would have this issue, and likely also with the chrome version if it's the same. Thanks for your additional findings in this thread!

 

[djnato10]

I have never used the two LTM Konica 35's, however I did have the M-Hexanon 35 f2 for a while. This is easily the lens I most regret selling. At one point I was shooting with nothing but 35mm lenses and I had the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH, Zeiss Biogon-C 35 f2.8, and the Konica M-Hexanon 35 f2 all at the same time. My Summicron was actually the first to go since Zeiss was just as sharp with more of the contrast that I was looking for. The Konica was the second to go which was a huge mistake. Looking back this is probably my favorite 35mm lens out there, even over my Biogon. On film it's just as sharp as both of the other two, it was the color rendition that did it though. There is something special about how the M-Hexanon rendered color film, specifically Ektar; and this is coming from someone who doesn't even like shooting color, 99% of everything I shoot is black and white. It's a heavy lens but the focus tab and smoothness of the focusing itself were absolutely amazing. If any of your find a good deal on this jump on it, I can promise you won't regret it.

 

[Archlich]

I have never used the two LTM Konica 35's, however I did have the M-Hexanon 35 f2 for a while. This is easily the lens I most regret selling. At one point I was shooting with nothing but 35mm lenses and I had the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH, Zeiss Biogon-C 35 f2.8, and the Konica M-Hexanon 35 f2 all at the same time. My Summicron was actually the first to go since Zeiss was just as sharp with more of the contrast that I was looking for. The Konica was the second to go which was a huge mistake. Looking back this is probably my favorite 35mm lens out there, even over my Biogon. On film it's just as sharp as both of the other two, it was the color rendition that did it though. There is something special about how the M-Hexanon rendered color film, specifically Ektar; and this is coming from someone who doesn't even like shooting color, 99% of everything I shoot is black and white. It's a heavy lens but the focus tab and smoothness of the focusing itself were absolutely amazing. If any of your find a good deal on this jump on it, I can promise you won't regret it.

I had the luck to own the M-Hexanon during the past years. It was truly magnificent... I believe the design was based on the M-Hexanon 28/2.8, which in itself is almost identical to the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 pre-ASPH (E46). It's a big, flat, symmetrical, non-aspherical, retrofocal lens that is very well corrected and performs flawlessly even on digital. I know of no other 35mm M lenses that share the same design. The closest would be the Nikkor 28/2.8 from the Nikon 28Ti, and the 55/4.5 Fujinon of the GF670W which share a similar design trait.

But mine did come with the focus a bit off. Could be the shim, could be sample variation. I was told by my technician Konica made it very easy to correct by including a set of shim rings beneath the mount. After the job it's perfect.