Hexanon 50 vs Zeiss Planar vs Summicron

[haziz]

I know this topic has been covered before but which setup would you guys go for? This would go on a Leica M6 ttl as well as Cosina R3A (also a Leica CL). I already have a VC Nokton 50 but want a lightweight compact travel lens.

The Hexanon has a price advantage but the Planar is available at a good price from Popflash (??Grey market). The Summicron would be used, probably the current version.

I also intend to add a 35 mm lens later probably the Summicron though the Zeiss Biogon is tempting. I have a 40 Rokkor but do want a true 35 mm lens.

BTW is there a final consensus regarding the focus of the Hexanon on a Leica body? I have searched the archives and I am now even more confused.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[ampguy]

Hexanon 50

Hexanon 50

works great on M4P.

 

[rover]

Flip a coin, performance, size, build, they are all great.

 

[Kyle]

The Planar is a good lens. Attatched is the only scanned sample I have.

It's for sale, BTW. I went ahead and got a 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar for the extra speed and can't afford both.

 

[wongyboi]

Hexanon is good for its price except I've been looking for one for awhile and havent had any luck 🙁

Where are they all hidden...

 

[Kyle]

There was one on pnet recently but it sold quickly.

 

[clintock]

The hexanon does not seem to be any lighter than the Nokton, but it's a good bit smaller. The brass makes it heavy.
The flange distance thing is bollocks- it focuses perfectly on leica and cosina bodies.
Get one if you can. The summicron may be easier to find.

 

[rpsawin]

BTW is there a final consensus regarding the focus of the Hexanon on a Leica body? I have searched the archives and I am now even more confused.

The focus issue was that supposedly Leica lenses do not focus properly on the Hexar RF body due to Konica's loose tolerances. While there were a few instances of this it pretty much comes down to specific body/lens combinations and is not a universal problem in any sense. I am not aware of any reported problems with Konica M mount lenses on Leica M bodies. Lecia will tell you not to do it but I think they may have a vested interest in keeping Leica lenses on Leica bodies.

I own both systems and have encountered no problem mixing lenses and bodies between the two systems. It is my understanding that if you do have an issue it's a pretty easy fix for a qualified tech.

BTW...the Hexanon glass is built as well as any Leica lens and produces outstanding results. I have the 21/35 Dual Range, 28, 50 and 90 and the only one that is not a top performer, IMHO, is the 21/35 Dual.

Best Regards,

Bob

 

[peter_n]

Its pretty funny to read on all the forums about the supposed poor tolerances of Konica. Konica was the optical company that the Japanese Ministry of Industry used as a quality benchmark of excellence that all other Japanese optical companies were supposed to emulate.

If anyone needs to look to their tolerances it is the German company who's lenses apparently don't work on Konica bodies.

 

[ampguy]

exactly

exactly

probably the only leica lenses that don't work as well or better on a hexar RF are ones that don't work on a lot of Leica's -- like many of the collapsibles, here's a great article --

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html

Its pretty funny to read on all the forums about the supposed poor tolerances of Konica. Konica was the optical company that the Japanese Ministry of Industry used as a quality benchmark of excellence that all other Japanese optical companies were supposed to emulate.

If anyone needs to look to their tolerances it is the German company who's lenses apparently don't work on Konica bodies.

 

[ZeissFan]

As a purist, I probably would buy the Leica glass for the Leica body. In terms of performance, I think you need to see some photos and then make your judgment.

The Summicron is one hell of a lens. The Planar and Hexanon are quality lenses as well.

Regarding swapping of Leica and Zeiss glass on the Zeiss Ikon and M bodies, I haven't heard of any incomabitibility or alleged focusing issues.

 

[RayPA]

I've both the Hex and a Summicron. I think the Hex is a little bigger and heavier. The build quality *seems* better on the Hex (but I've been told that I'm relying on an old school prejudice that heavier = better build 🙂 ). Here are some funky things to conisder:

• The Hex has a built-in hood (some folks like that).
• IIRC, the KM lenses use a different focus scale. (I know the KM lenses are different from the CV lenses. I preset focus a lot and was shooting quite a bit with the CV 35 and 28 and shot this last weekend with my Hex 50 and noticed the scale was marked differently.)
• The 50 Hex has a 40.5 filter ring (same as your Rokkor, no?)

I think the Hex lenses overall are contrastier and have a different look from Leica lenses.

Anyway, with regards to the Hex and the Cron, both are great lenses. There are lots of really good 50's out there!

 

[markinlondon]

I'd vote for -
1. Whichever you can get at a good price
2. Consider what filter sizes you already use

Really there's nothing in it on performance, just look.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Like Ray, I own both of these lenses, and I concur with his points.

In particular, the Hex has slightly higher contrast than the cron IV tabbed and V hooded (which in turn is higher contrast than all prior cron versions).

In terms of practical sharpness, I see no differences between the lenses. Both also render very pleasing OOF rendition. If you are into MTFs, the cron is 4.6 and the hex is 4.5, both easily the head of the class of almost all other lenses. And so close that the marginal difference has no practical effect.

Build quality, equal in my opinion.

Both are great, get the one that you can find in the best condition for the best price, good luck.

(no experience with the planar, but have seen very good results from Tetrisattac and Nachebia)

I've both the Hex and a Summicron. I think the Hex is a little bigger and heavier. The build quality *seems* better on the Hex (but I've been told that I'm relying on an old school prejudice that heavier = better build 🙂 ). Here are some funky things to conisder:

• The Hex has a built-in hood (some folks like that).
• IIRC, the KM lenses use a different focus scale. (I know the KM lenses are different from the CV lenses. I preset focus a lot and was shooting quite a bit with the CV 35 and 28 and shot this last weekend with my Hex 50 and noticed the scale was marked differently.)
• The 50 Hex has a 40.5 filter ring (same as your Rokkor, no?)

I think the Hex lenses overall are contrastier and have a different look from Leica lenses.

Anyway, with regards to the Hex and the Cron, both are great lenses. There are lots of really good 50's out there!

 

[markinlondon]

To follow up on what Magus has said re micro vs macro contrast, for years I shot with a Pentax 50 f2 and was very pleased with it. It was sharp and contrasty and I wondered how anyone could improve on this. Then I got my current Summicron. In many ways it resembles the Pentax in overall contrast and sharpness, BUT fine detail is much more apparent AND objects appear more "three-dimensional". I take this to be a function of the 'crons greater micro-contrast. Crosslit grainy wood is always a good test.

This frame is the one that first convinced me the 'cron was worth 20 Pentaxes. There have been many since.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

nice shot Mark 🙂

 

[telenous]

IMHO the Planar has a different 'look' from the Summicron. Nachkebia's photos from India are a good case in point (and I have a few of my own that enstreghten this view of mine). I actually prefer the Summicron but the Planar is the great unsung hero of the recent ZM lens line-up (perhaps because it is the cheapest?). It gives photos with a black underpaint as it were, and the kind of tonality that I personally associate with larger negatives. But it is less crisp or (apparently) sharp than the Summicron. The Planar's bokeh is also slightly harsher, without being glassy or really harsh. Photos from the Hexanon that I have seen in the web do indeed resemble more the Summicron than the Planar does. If you like Summicrons, you will also like Hexanons. That's not to say that you will not like Planars, but if you don't, it's easier to see why.

On the question of macro- and micro-contrast, I agree with what my friends Magus and Mark have to say (possibly because we use the same sources to explain what we see).

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request