CV 28/2 or M-Hexanon 28/2.8

[Tim Gray]

If you can go slower, check out the CV 28/3.5. Fabulous lens, though they are starting to get pricey. I've not used the two you mentioned, but I'd go for the Hexanon if it were me.

 

[Bruin]

If you're buying "blind" (without a chance to see pics from the actual lenses or test them yourself) I'd go with the M-Hex. Konica quality control was a lot tighter than CV's today. In particular check for decentering on the CV.

However if you get a good Ultron, I believe it's optically as good or better than the M-Hex, stop for stop. More than one person here will vouch that the F2 Ultron is even better than the F1.9 version, and pretty darn close to the Summicron. You don't have to use it at F2, but it's there if you need it!

My Ultron even compares well to my M-Hex 50/2 in build quality - it's just a tiny step behind. Both are way better than the ZM I had. The Ultron comes with a hood also, making it smaller than the M-Hex and 'cron with their hoods on.

 

[wilonstott]

In particular check for decentering on the CV.

What is this, and how does one check for it?

 

[flip]

Hexanon is better, CV is faster. You decide what you need more. If you shoot 28mm a lot, I'd go with a better lens. And I did - I have the Hex.

I have similar sentiments. It says a lot about the quality of the CV that at a stop faster, it still contends with the Hex in the minds of some. At the same time, it says something about the Hex that many of us a willing to lose a stop for its quality.

FWIW, I have the Hex and CV 28/1.9. Different rendering. Different mounts. Different purposes.

I cannot speak on the CV 28/2, however.

 

[chrispiper]

I'm in the same spot - deciding between the Hex and Ultron (2.0). How do folks feel about the rendering of the two lenses? In general I prefer a more "vintage" look i.e. lower contrast, maybe a touch softer overall. Though frankly I get get close to the same effect with a little post processing (lower contrast and negative clarity in LightRoom). I'd also rather have more speed than not as I shoot a lot indoors. Oh, and I want it small too. I know, a tall order. Priority wise I'd say rendering first, speed second and size third.

Thoughts?

 

[chrispiper]

If the Leica were in the budget I wouldn't be asking, but thanks.

Chris

 

[Bob Michaels]

Only you can tell how fast a lens you really need.

28mm is my favorite focal length. I have been shooting with a 28mm Hexanon almost exclusively lately.

I shoot a lot indoors. I once thought that a f2.0 lens would be helpful. But I have come to find that almost all indoor shots meter at f2.8 @ 1/30th with an e.i. of 320. And I have no concerns about hand holding 1/15th when needed. I have concluded if I had a f2.0 28mm lens that it would never be with me on those rare occasions when I would actually benefit from the extra stop. So I never bought that 28mm f2.0 lens.

Ask yourself if most 28mm lenses were f2.0, would you then feel that you had to have a f1.4? Try to remember the times when your photos really suffered because you lacked that extra stop.

But again, only you know how fast a lens you really need.

Here is a room illuminated entirely by two 1 meter square windows on either side. There were no electric lights. The ceiling was palm fronds that absorbed any light. The wall were rough wood that reflected very little light. Yet this shot was made f2.8 @ 1/30th e.i. 320. If I would have had a f2.0 lens, I still would have shot at f2.8.

 

[Tim Gray]

But I have come to find that almost all indoor shots meter at f2.8 @ 1/30th with an e.i. of 320.

Nice photo. You must shoot in different indoors than I do. I've been at 1/8 at f/2 and ISO 400 enough that it's a nuisance. Shooting TMZ at 1600 gets that up to a more reasonable 1/30th.

I do agree with your sentiment though. You can do a lot with f/2.8 or even slower.

 

[chrispiper]

Good point. I usually use 400 speed film and you've got to dip pretty low on the shutter speed wide open at 2.8 to get something usable. And then I have to work it in post to open it up a little more. Bob - are these straight from the camera or did you use some levels/contrast in post to get your results? In any case, thanks for posting real world examples.

I'm shooting a wedding this weekend where it's inside, at night, and the curtains will be blacked out. Tables lit by candles and weak overhead lighting. I ordered Neopan 1600 and expect to shoot my Hex 50 wide open and as low as I can hold it. On the digital side I'll shoot my 50 f/1.4 wide open and crank up the ISO close to max. I'll have to use a fair amount to luminance noise reduction or hope they don't mind the "grain". If I had to use my f/2.8 zooms I would be in trouble. The speed makes a difference. You make a good point though, I don't really want to go much faster than f/1.4 because it's too hard to shoot action at that thin DOF. I wouldn't shoot at f/1.0 even if I had the lens.

Now, I don't shoot like this all the time, but more speed is better for my style of photography. I also shoot my kids around the house and you never know when they'll be doing something interesting. Early morning, curtains closed, in the bathtub, under the table etc etc. All dark or dimly lit and there's no time to stop the action and open windows or turn on the lights. I can probably live with f/2.8 and I love the Hexanons but it's hard to give up speed if you don't have to.

Chris

 

[ampguy]

I haven't tried the Ultron or Rokkor.

I've used these 28's extensively: M-Hexanon, Canon 28/2.8 ltm, CV 35/3.5 ltm, CV 28/1.9 ltm, Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 M.

I'd rate them in this order, assuming you get good samples:

1. M-Hexanon 28/2.8 M (medium size)
2. Canon 28/2.8 ltm (small)
3. CV 28/1.9 (big)
4. CV 35/3.5 (small)
5. Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 (medium)

I have great photos from all of them, but the Biogon is not the one you want if you shoot in or towards the sun, the build quality is also so-so, it's on the same level as the CV's.

 

[mfunnell]

I have the CV 28mm/f1.9 Ultron and the M-Hexanon 28mm/f2.8. I like the Ultron - but I like the Hex so well since it arrived 18 months ago that the Ultron has hardly spent time on a camera.

...Mike

 

[sanmich]

Interesting ranking.
could you please elaborate on number 2-3-4?
Is the old design canon that good?
Why do you rank the skopar so low?
Thanks!

I haven't tried the Ultron or Rokkor.

I've used these 28's extensively: M-Hexanon, Canon 28/2.8 ltm, CV 35/3.5 ltm, CV 28/1.9 ltm, Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 M.

I'd rate them in this order, assuming you get good samples:

1. M-Hexanon 28/2.8 M (medium size)
2. Canon 28/2.8 ltm (small)
3. CV 28/1.9 (big)
4. CV 35/3.5 (small)
5. Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 (medium)

I have great photos from all of them, but the Biogon is not the one you want if you shoot in or towards the sun, the build quality is also so-so, it's on the same level as the CV's.

 

[ampguy]

Yes, the Canon is excellent

Yes, the Canon is excellent

These are my personal opinions, where speed, build quality, and form factor play a part.

The Canon is just great. The M-Hexanon (well mine), is as good as any Leica Elmarit pre-asph.

The CV's are OK, the 3.5 is too slow for me, but compact. The 1.9 is a good lens, but not built like the first two quality wise, and flares worse than both as well. I like it because it is fast though, but it's big.

Interesting ranking.
could you please elaborate on number 2-3-4?
Is the old design canon that good?
Why do you rank the skopar so low?
Thanks!

 

[Bob Michaels]

Good point. I usually use 400 speed film and you've got to dip pretty low on the shutter speed wide open at 2.8 to get something usable. And then I have to work it in post to open it up a little more. Bob - are these straight from the camera or did you use some levels/contrast in post to get your results? In any case, thanks for posting real world examples.<snip>
Chris

Chris: I always do post processing for everything. It is quick and simple, yet the key to a good print.

That image had my normal manual setting of levels and separate layer with a S shaped contrast curve which takes me 30-45 seconds. But it also had a layer with some dodging of the skin tones that took another 30-45 seconds to do. I always do that in a separate layer so I can adjust the opacity. That 1-2 minutes is the difference between a bland print and one that works.

That is a great trade off for having one lens that works 100% of time.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Nice photo. You must shoot in different indoors than I do. I've been at 1/8 at f/2 and ISO 400 enough that it's a nuisance. Shooting TMZ at 1600 gets that up to a more reasonable 1/30th.

I do agree with your sentiment though. You can do a lot with f/2.8 or even slower.

Tim: yes, indoors differs. I usually shoot in the daytime with some sun coming in a window.

I do think one of the keys is understanding what latitude you film has and how to use it most effectively. The best exposure is certainly not what you meter reads without any interpretation.

For example, here is a shot made after midnight in a blues club in Clarksdale MS made on normal processed HP5. Exposure was based on some knowledge instead of following a meter reading. (OK, it was f2.0 and not 2.8)

 

[Tim Gray]

Agreed Bob. I've been in situations where there just isn't enough light. I shot a concert once where I was shooting at f/1.8 and 1/6th at ISO 3200. Lower ISO or longer shutters would have been nice for better negatives, but to 'freeze' the action of musicians running around, there's a limit to how slow you can go. And at 1/6th, I was already way pushing that limit. This wasn't with an M though - I was spot metering off the face to get a sensible reading.

By the way, your Cuba pictures are great.

 

[chrispiper]

Bob - I post process everything as well, usually some curves and sharpening, maybe a little more but not much. I come from the digital side so it's expected to run everything through LightRoom - I have no shame 🙂 I've found I can pull film scans quite a bit but sometimes when you're at an edge already you lose your ability to get much more in post.

Tim - I agree with you about just not being enough light sometimes. I shoot people almost exclusively, and while I'm not always trying to totally freeze motion, I don't like excessive blur. 1/30 is about as low as you can go and hope to get a clean shot if the subjects aren't completely still. 1/60 is better.

Oh, I just sent funds for a 28 Hexanon, should be here next week. I can't wait to see how it works on the M6. I don't have anything against CV - I have the 35 Color Skopar and quite like it - but the Hexanons just seem right.

Chris

 

[ampguy]

You'll like it Chris

You'll like it Chris

I think you'll be pleased with your choice Chris. The key to getting great results with this lens is using the stock hood. The aftermarket ones are just too wide or too narrow for this particular lens.

Bob - I post process everything as well, usually some curves and sharpening, maybe a little more but not much. I come from the digital side so it's expected to run everything through LightRoom - I have no shame 🙂 I've found I can pull film scans quite a bit but sometimes when you're at an edge already you lose your ability to get much more in post.

Tim - I agree with you about just not being enough light sometimes. I shoot people almost exclusively, and while I'm not always trying to totally freeze motion, I don't like excessive blur. 1/30 is about as low as you can go and hope to get a clean shot if the subjects aren't completely still. 1/60 is better.

Oh, I just sent funds for a 28 Hexanon, should be here next week. I can't wait to see how it works on the M6. I don't have anything against CV - I have the 35 Color Skopar and quite like it - but the Hexanons just seem right.

Chris

 

[chrispiper]

I feel pretty good about the choice, but maybe a little sheepish after my "need for speed" rationale ... Sometimes you don't always go with the hard logic.

I am getting the stock hood with the lens so I'll be sure to keep it attached.

Chris

 

[Tim Gray]

I think you'll be happy. My 28 of choice is the 28/2. I needed to send it in for a cleaning and it didn't get back in time for my trip to Japan last year. So I took the 28/3.5 instead. For the most part, I was fine with it. I did have a 50/1.4 if light was really low (not that I resorted to it), but the little slow 28 did it's part whenever I asked it to. Including inside Tsukiji fish market, which isn't pitch black, but there are pockets in there which are dim.

I need to shoot with the 28/3.5 more...