Konica LTM Hexanon 35 uc and 35 cron IV

Konica M39 lenses
dreamsandart said:
With either lens, using the old method of stopping down a couple stops for best results, they really are outstanding at f4-f5.6. And thinking of the 'boke factor', in this range and with subjects in the 2-3 meter focus range the transition of out of focus area seems very 'natural' to me, not the abrupt fall off of the newer ASPH Summicron, which is why I still like the 'older' design lenses.
Click to expand...
Interesting. With the UC Hexanon I find the look subtly "odd" around the f4 mark so tend to use it either wide open (ish) or at f5.6+. Maybe that was just happenstance with some photos I took early on. I might try again and see if I still think the same way.

...Mike
 
Color samples

Color samples

I went ahead and processed two of the .dng files as color (generic M8). Nothing else done to the images, other than resizing to fit here.



cron color 1.jpg

35 Cron IV



hex color 1.jpg

35 Hexanon UC
 
thomasw_ said:
That Hexanon renders well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast it with the real king of 35s, the ZM 35/2 😉
Click to expand...
Konica bigot that I am, I'd note that the correct comparison there would be with the M-Hexanon 35/2 which renders quite differently from photos taken with the UC-Hexanon. That's a comparison I'd like to see as I'd originally intended to get the ZM 35, assuming that the M-Hex would be too hard to find. However, an RFF member "popped up" with one for sale so I snaffled it.

...Mike
 
Thank-you for providing the colour samples, tbarker13. The lenses both render very nicely. I think the hex has a little more modern look to it some how.
 
That's true Mike. I read somewhere that the M-hex 35 has better defined but dreamier OOF areas than the UC 35. I can't tell but perhaps that has to do with the UC's 'ultra coated' lenses? Some have written that the UC has less barrel distortion than the M version. It is interesting that konica designed the 2 35s so differently; the M after the summicron and the UC after the nikkor 35/1,8.
 
Here's a pic taken with the other Hexanon ... the KM 35 f2.

Also on an M8 at F2.

L1001027.jpg
 
thomasw_ said:
That Hexanon renders well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast it with the real king of 35s, the ZM 35/2 😉
Click to expand...

They both cost about the same but are totally different approaches. I have no doubt the ZM 35/2 will be sharper wide open but it's useless to me as I like 35 beeing on the camera most of the time, having it in one of my jackets or in a very small case designed for point&shoot cameras.

Also, I have a lot LTM cameras which I stil use more than my single M mount. So it very much depends on the user. I'm happy if it's better than my Canon 35/2 in LTM which is great at f/8, not so great at f/2 and has a bit too much flare with backlite. It should be better because it's 40 years newer, design-wise. Probably the longer M-Hexanon 35/2 is better to compare with the ZM 35/2.

In terms of size the Summicron 35/2 IV is most close to the UC Hexanon. In particular the first 2 pictures (B&W) showed me that the Konica isn't that soft wide open in the outer areas as the Leica. I like to hear that it flares less, as I use all my 35's often against bright sky and flare can be annoying. But one should expect no "wonders" with any Gaussian wideangle lenses of the "old type". Newer Biogons and Convexo-concave designs are different.

cheers Frank
 
cameraman said:
Is it just me, or do others see something very "digital" in those photos? I'm not the greatest fan of the Summicron IV, but something is very "off" in those samples, my prints (done with a Leica M6) is way more smooth. Bokeh here is almost harsh.
Click to expand...

Well they were taken on M8 as I undersand. 😉
 
Is it just me, or do others see something very "digital" in those photos? I'm not the greatest fan of the Summicron IV, but something is very "off" in those samples, my prints (done with a Leica M6) is way more smooth. Bokeh here is almost harsh.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have a much finer eye than I, but I don't see a difference on screen shots. Of course, I don't have a film version of these shots to compare, so its pretty open to debate and individual opinion.
 
Sonnar2 said:
But one should expect no "wonders" with any Gaussian wideangle lenses of the "old type". Newer Biogons and Convexo-concave designs are different...
Click to expand...

You're so right. I've been surprised at how well my two 35mm Voigts (Ultron & Nokton) compare with my Cron IV and Lux at wider apertures. The Cron is pathetic at f2 but pulls itself together at f2.8. The Lux is better than the Cron at f2 but not as good at f2.8. The Voigts are better than either at these apertures, despite their relatively low cost. The advantage of the Cron & Lux is portability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom