Comparisons: M-hex 50/2 and 50 Summicron Rigid

[2tcreative]

I just received a 50 Rigid Summicron in trade and have had to send it off for CLA (aperture ring was sticking at max aperture at times) so have not shot any film with it.

I do have a Konica M-hex 50/2 that is superb. What I need to determine is do these two have very simular characteristics (tone, contrast, sharpness (edge and wide-open), etc.)? If so, I will have to make a determination if I need to keep both. If different then I most likely will keep both.

The second part of my question is...I am planning on acquiring a Zeiss ZM Biogon 35/2 as well and get rid of my CV 40/1.4 MC. Will the Zeiss compliment the same signature of either of the 50's I now own? Or do I need to continue to save up for a 35 Summicron V4 to better match these 50s?

Thanks for your help!

 

[awilder]

The Hex 50 will have more sharpnesss and bite to the image at larger openning and will be much more flare resistant due to improved contrast from better coating and fewer air to glass surfaces. Resolving power however, should be better with the Summicron stopped down to f/4 and beyond especially at the center. Edge resolving power will be close between the two. The closer focus of the Hex may also factor into your decision.

 

[Trius]

Compared to the Summicron the Hexar is a piece of junk and should be sent to me for disposal.

 

[Gid]

Compared to the Summicron the Hexar is a piece of junk and should be sent to me for disposal.

I agree completely. I am only keeping mine so that I can protect some unsuspecting individual from falling foul of it.

BTW I sold my latest version Summicron and kept the Hexanon.

 

[Krosya]

I have already posted these elsewhere here, but here they are again to give some idea:
Hexanon:

Rigid Summicron:

I sold Rigid, as much as I liked the signature of it - just didn't agree with me handling-wise - too much of a focus throw, stupid focusing tab and while great for b&w, I didn't like the way it does colour. While Hexanon is a superb lens on all accounts.

 

[2tcreative]

Sounds like the M-hexanon is getting the nod. However, what about my second question...compare the Konica signature to the Zeiss Biogon...would they appear simular in tone, sharpness (center vs edge), etc. I would like to find something that will be close between the 50 and 35 since they will be the predominate FLs I will use.

 

[Krosya]

I don't have an answer to your second question, but rather a thought - what about a Hexanon 35mm? If you can find one - it may have a similar properties as 50mm one. I don't have 35 Hex nor 35 Biogon to confirm this though. Just an idea.

 

[2tcreative]

35 Hex

35 Hex

I don't have an answer to your second question, but rather a thought - what about a Hexanon 35mm? If you can find one - it may have a similar properties as 50mm one. I don't have 35 Hex nor 35 Biogon to confirm this though. Just an idea.

I tried to win one a week ago on the big auction bay but it went for more than the Zeiss and almost as much as the UC version from the Japanesse store, if I remember correctly.

Just have a thing for Zeiss glass I guess. But would use the M-hex as well if I could find one.

 

[venchka]

Looking at the Konica 50 sample above confirms what I've seen in my photos with Konica 28mm and 35mm lenses: They just don't flare. None. Zero.

 

[peter_n]

I sold Rigid, as much as I liked the signature of it - just didn't agree with me handling-wise - too much of a focus throw, stupid focusing tab and while great for b&w, I didn't like the way it does colour...

Same here, a great piece of history but impractical and flare-prone. Beautiful B&W though if you can handle the issues you describe.