Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Ok, so I found a chrome 35 Hexanon screwmount at a price I couldn't refuse, following a 35/2 Canon at a price I couldn't refuse, following a Canon P with a 35/2.8 at a price I couldn't refuse...
So since I will have the chrome one in a few days, and I can borrow my brother's UC, anyone want to lay bets on:
1. Whether they are obviously different optically?
2. Whether the UC is actually smaller?
3. Whether one is sharper than the other?
4. Anything else?
I have my suspicions, but speculation is always fun!
Dante
So since I will have the chrome one in a few days, and I can borrow my brother's UC, anyone want to lay bets on:
1. Whether they are obviously different optically?
2. Whether the UC is actually smaller?
3. Whether one is sharper than the other?
4. Anything else?
I have my suspicions, but speculation is always fun!
Dante
f16sunshine
Moderator
Is the 35ltm the same optical unit as the Hexar AF or is that the UC Hex (or maybe neither)?
My understanding is that the Hexanon f2/35mm M mount is a different lens from the earlier Konica 35's, it would be cool if you had that one to compare as well.
I'll be curious to discover how the LTM's compare.
I still use film with the Hexar AF. It's my only fast 35mm lens (Oly XA3 is next @f3.5)
The Konica lenses are special.
My understanding is that the Hexanon f2/35mm M mount is a different lens from the earlier Konica 35's, it would be cool if you had that one to compare as well.
I'll be curious to discover how the LTM's compare.
I still use film with the Hexar AF. It's my only fast 35mm lens (Oly XA3 is next @f3.5)
The Konica lenses are special.
kuvvy
Well-known
The UC-Hex is a great performer. I used to have one for my RD1. Gave great results but I preferred a 28mm so sold it. One came into the photo store I work a short while ago and I was tempted but didn’t give in.
Paul
Paul
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I believe the chrome 35, the UC, and the Hexar are all the same lens, all modeled on the 35/1.8 Nikkor. The chrome one probably the most so because it even mimics the scalloped focus ring.
The M-Hexanon is a lot different.
I will be curious to measure the size of the UC against the chrome - it looks smaller than the chrome, but look at the positioning of the aperture ring. I think it's an optical illusion. The chrome 35 has the aperture ring set far forward, like an old Zeiss lens.
Dante
Archlich
Well-known
According to Konica's literature it's a modified Xenotar, intentionally made under-corrected on spherical aberration for better field curvature and to keep the size down. The Hexar body automatically compensates for focus shifts depending on the current aperture setting and the rangefinder's feedback.
On my new digital M I find my trustworthy (on film) UC-Hexanon to shift backward heavily between f/2.8 and f/5.6 - my favorite aperture range, sadly. A Color-Skopar (a Biogon by design) fares much better in this regard.
On my new digital M I find my trustworthy (on film) UC-Hexanon to shift backward heavily between f/2.8 and f/5.6 - my favorite aperture range, sadly. A Color-Skopar (a Biogon by design) fares much better in this regard.
KEVIN-XU 愛 forever
所謂的攝影,就&
Actually it’s an old topic in Rangefinder forum.
Konica Chrome Hexanon 35 2 is the lens used on Hexar camera. Its optical design based on the classic lens Nikkor-w 35mm f1.8 made for Nikon SP. The difference between Konica chrome 35 2 and Konica UC-Hexanon 35 2 is that UC coating. The UC-Hexanon version has a lovely focus tab and its painting is gorgeous.
Konica Chrome Hexanon 35 2 is the lens used on Hexar camera. Its optical design based on the classic lens Nikkor-w 35mm f1.8 made for Nikon SP. The difference between Konica chrome 35 2 and Konica UC-Hexanon 35 2 is that UC coating. The UC-Hexanon version has a lovely focus tab and its painting is gorgeous.
taomei
Established
Having a Nikon W-Nikkor 35/1.8 (sadly not mountable on a Leica body even with an Amadeo adapter) and a MS-Optical-converted Konica Hexar AF 35/2 for the M-mount, I'm highly curious if they solved the issues with backfocus under 1m (Miyazaki noted in the conversion to only use F2.8 and larger at 1m or further in his included test chart).
I think both the UC and the non-UC focus down to 0.9m?
I think both the UC and the non-UC focus down to 0.9m?
Modelled on, but not the same. Compared to the W-Nikkor 35/1.8, the Hexanons have significant barrel distortion.
The Hexanons share the same optical formula. A large camera shop in Tokyo (sorry I forget the shop's name right now) commissioned Konica to make an LTM version of the Hexar AF lens (the chrome 35) which proved so popular that the shop did a second round using the same optics with multi-coating and different barrel (UC).
Archlich
Well-known
I believe it's Fujisawa Shokai, on whose website the UC-Hexanon hood could still be purchased new until recent years.
They also commissioned the 50/2.4, the 60/1.2 and the Hexar RF 72, maybe more.
Ahhh yes! That's it.
Their website was http://www.5055.co.jp/ but they closed up shop in April 2014 unfortunately and the website no longer exists.
Here's a waybackmachine snapshot of their website from February 2006, and sure enough the UC Hex is listed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060202000807/http://www.5055.co.jp/
f16sunshine
Moderator
Very interesting.
Had no idea these lenses are commissioned by one shop.
Had no idea these lenses are commissioned by one shop.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is hard to judge any lens with 1.5 crop factor. You have to see what lens does in the corners before assigning it "great performer" mark.
music_healing
Well-known
1. i feel they have different color rendering (in film)
2. chrome is smaller .. but ergonomically worse .. UC is the best to handle
3. nope both are sharp .. very sharp ... for my taste
4. i love the chrome hood... solid black hood.. and now the hood is used on UC and other 46 mm
Sincerely
William
wintoid
Back to film
I had a UC hex once and sold it. Probably the lens I most regret selling.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
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.
When I first bought a black one, the "UC" always struck me as being related to the size. Certainly not the close-focusing. But I suspect that this was mainly about associating it with Konica's prestige UC lenses of old (like the 15mm and 28/1.8), just as the design was changed to make it look more like a Summicron v4. So I'd chalk it up to marketing.
Regret selling my black one? Theoretically, yes, and my renewed interest is in finding a good 35 for a Canon P. But what really happened that with prices where they were back then for Leica, I was able to buy a new 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH for only a couple hundred more bucks. And I can't with a straight face argue that the Leica lens doesn't crush the UC-Hexanon in build or optical quality. Not bokeh, but in practice it has not been a huge issue. Also, I kept my Hexar AF, which had the same lens and auto-compensates for focus shift in stopping down.
And today, it's hard to regard the black one as a "good value" lens, considering that it is now up there in price with the screwmount Summicron ASPH, probably the best 35/2 lens ever made.
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
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
eric4
Established
I'm a big fan of my UC Hexanon as well. So much so, that I purchased a dead Hexar AF to convert to M-mount when MGR releases a kit (if they ever do). This conversion lens should have a .7m MFD, but likely won't be as gorgeous.
The coating colors do seem different between the Hexar AF and UC Hexanon. The UC coatings have more of a red coloring, where the Hexar has a green tint - the same green tint that my 50mm Hexanon 2.4 LTM has.
The coating colors do seem different between the Hexar AF and UC Hexanon. The UC coatings have more of a red coloring, where the Hexar has a green tint - the same green tint that my 50mm Hexanon 2.4 LTM has.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Should have never sold my black Hexar AF. Should have never sold my UC Hexanon.
Among the things I have owned then sold, those Konica products are at the top of the list. Above my 3.5E Planar Rolleiflex, above my Leica M2, above my beloved Nikon F4.
Phil Forrest
Among the things I have owned then sold, those Konica products are at the top of the list. Above my 3.5E Planar Rolleiflex, above my Leica M2, above my beloved Nikon F4.
Phil Forrest
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
KEVIN-XU 愛 forever;2786904 said:
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.
Archlich
Well-known
I don't think extra coating alone could fix it.
My UC-Hexanon is quite good at the minimal distance, but drifts backward (on digital) between f/2.8 and f/5.6, from like 1.2m to infinity.
A shot of near-infinity subject, f/5.6, focused at infinity and 10m respectively:
Might be sample variation but mine is spot on wide open.
Again, it's on digital, which spoils. On film I never quite noticed it...maybe there were more to fault (like the scanner), maybe I was just being sloppy (especially when shooting film).