Hexanon 50 vs Zeiss Planar vs Summicron

[ghost]

how about whichever one looks best on your camera?

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ghost]

the infamous print test by mike johnston will pop anyone's bubble of theory. just buy the lens that looks best on your camera. or the one with ergonomics you like most.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

 

[RayPA]

the infamous print test by mike johnston will pop anyone's bubble of theory. just buy the lens that looks best on your camera. or the one with ergonomics you like most.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

good link. perfect for this thread! 🙂 I agree with the advice too. Shall we begin the debate on which lens looks better on a camera? 😀

🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ampguy]

Other than the Hexanon, I've yet to see another 50 that can take photos like this one:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=33961&d=1160092465

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

lol ... lets not get carried away here ... with any lens

Hexanon is a great lens, I agree, but it is not 'magical', nor are Leica lenses 😉

Can anyone else spot the face of Christ in that tree trunk? 😀

What are we supposed to be looking for Ted?

 

[Gid]

I've read the Mike Johnstonn piece before and IMHO it makes a very valid point (one that's been made many times before on RFF). It is the photographer that is important, not the lens (or camera) per se.

I have no problem with anyone who pursues excellence in all aspects of their photography, particularly their equipment. Having the "best" equipment at least rules out some of the excuses we could otherwise make with regard to the quality of our results. However, how we measure "best" is varied and will always be tempered by personal preference and brand loyalty. MTF graphs and shots of test charts may give you an indication of the likely performance of any given lens relative to its competitors, but they don't show how the lens performs in real life. The only way to be sure is to use a lens and make your own mind up and your view may well be at odds with the test charts. When you consider how many of us use zone focusing, the inherent sharpness of a lens is sometimes irrelevant. How a lens draws may well be because of its imperfections as much as its optical excellence. There are plenty of wonderful shots in the RFF gallery taken with lenses that cost little money and couldn't hold a candle to the current 50 'cron in a test chart shoot out, but the PHOTOGRAPHER has managed, in spite of his "poor" equipment to produce an impressive result.

Nobody ever got shot for buying Leica lenses. I doubt that anyone could argue against their build quality or optical excellence (in general terms), but that does not necessarily mean that they are the "best" in all their guises or that other brands do not equal or in some circumstances surpass them. The best judge of a lens' performance is YOUR eyes not the name or price tag.

Regarding the OP, in my tests of several 50mm lenses including the hexanon and the latest version 'cron, there is nothing between them. Personally I prefer the hexanon because of its size - fatter, but shorter.

 

[ampguy]

72dpi

72dpi

or whatever does not do it justice.

Signed 8x10's are $10.00. $20.00 in Canada.

😉

lol ... lets not get carried away here ... with any lens

Hexanon is a great lens, I agree, but it is not 'magical', nor are Leica lenses 😉

Can anyone else spot the face of Christ in that tree trunk? 😀

What are we supposed to be looking for Ted?

 

[telenous]

Dear Alkis, thanks for this. I'm not sure about the 'black underpaint'; perhaps we understand different things here (for me this is Balthusian, and there is nothing Balthusian about Zeiss lenses!).

Dear Magus - agreed! I chose to speak of a black underpaint because the Planar gave me deeper blacks than anything I had tried at the time (mind you, the only other lenses I had back then were the rigid Summicron and Summilux 50 (II), both of which were medium contrast compared to the modern kind of drawing afforded by the Planar).

What I can say is that Kyle's photo with the Planar:


demonstrates a different phenomenon, that is to say this:

'When the resolving power is very high, the microcontrast drops and the image details are no longer visible. The grain pattern of any film will produce a random noise and as soon as the microcontrast of fine image details is at or below the level of this noise, the image will only reproduce an amorphous density. The limit has [been] reached. That’s why a fine grain high resolution/low contrast image often looks a little vague.' (From Erwin's original Noctilux review.)


What do you think?

I have very scarce knowledge of the mathematical formulas that support the themes we talk about. It will be interesting, perhaps even illuminating, to study them in some depth (and put for once in use my Maths background) but I suspect, like we all do, that the results we see on paper or on our screens are the synergystic outcome of many different variables, each of which contributes inextricably to the final result.

Be that as it may, I believe, as others don't, that lens character can be evidenced by perception, and therefore it is perfectly legitimate, if somewhat intricate, to talk about lens signatures, and so on. Otherwise we may as well shoot our photos with Coca-Cola bottles, for it will not make any difference whatsoever.

Back to the Planar: Kyle's photo is nothing like what I have seen from my brief encounter with the lens. In my samples, as well as the few I have seen from Vlademir, the lens indeed exhibits a tendency for darker lower tones. The comparison with the rigid Summicron was telling: the old Summicron I had at the time gave photos with crisp detail and medium contrast - completely different from the Planar.

Like our friend Erwin says:

...Very fine detail is recorded with good clarity, but with less crispness than the Leica counterpart. It shares with that lens the weak suppression of secondary reflections, due to the reflections at the edges of the rear mount. The background blur is on the harsh side.

The transition from the sharpness plane to the unsharpness regions however is quite long, giving a fine impression of depth and extension. The lens is especially good at recording detail in extended shadow zones, when you take pictures at dusk or at night.

The background blur shows the major outlines of the subject shapes, more sketching than drawing so to speak. Close up performance is excellent from centre to edge without any vignetting and distortion.

The Planar wide open is a potent performer and at smaller apertures becomes a master at reproducing with a life-like three dimensionality, that was the hallmark of the G-version of the Planar too...

The second paragraph describes what I was trying to relate about the 'larger negative' kind of feel from the lens.

Vlademir's photo which strikes be as best illustrating the point is this:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=46519&cat=500&ppuser=5816&sl=n

(great photo BTW)

and perhaps also this

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47274&cat=500&ppuser=5816&sl=n

I seem to have a problem posting one of mine - I will try again in my next post.

All the best, as always,

 

[telenous]

And here are two photos of mine with the Planar. For those who care about such things, the cigar in the first photo is a Partagas. The second photo was taken on Pan F, perhaps that goes to explain the deep blacks in this case.

 

[back alley]

what an absolutely beautiful cigar.

 

[ampguy]

beautiful woman too

beautiful woman too

but the ear seems unusually shiny??

And here are two photos of mine with the Planar. For those who care about such things, the cigar in the first photo is a Partagas. The second photo was taken on Pan F, perhaps that goes to explain the deep blacks in this case.

 

[ray_g]

I take the different look to be contrast, beacuse I'm not sure what else to call it (I too am not an optical expert--Far from it!). To me images from the Hex lenses have a "heavier" look. This image by Ray_G IMO is indicative of the Hex look.

Appreciate the link, Ray. However, I am not sure how representative that particular shot is due to the toning that I applied. This shot may be a better sample, with less processing.

Those two, however, were from the 90 Hexanon.

This is a sample of the 50 Hexanon, sharp, contrasty, good bokeh:

And finally, the Summicron, sharp, but you need to be careful of the background.

I loved the Hexanon, but ended up selling it and keeping a tabbed summicron. Why, because I have gotten used to the tab on my 35/2 ASPH - the common handling makes the shooting more natural for me, especially with prefocusing. In the end, getting the shot quickly was more important to me than any subtle differences in the optical rendering. Whichever you choose to keep will be fine, they are all very fine and capable lenses.

 

[Trius]

Nobody ever got shot for buying Leica
lenses.

Surely you're a bachelor.

 

[Trius]

Alkis: How can one judge black levels from a shot made on negative stock that is then processed through scanning, PS or equivalent and prepared for the web? The only real comparative test, it seems to me, would be to shoot transparencies that are matched for high values and see evaluate where the low values fall, both by viewing and by densitometry.

 

[x-ray]

the infamous print test by mike johnston will pop anyone's bubble of theory. just buy the lens that looks best on your camera. or the one with ergonomics you like most.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

I agree 100%.

 

[matt fury]

In the matter of Planar vs Summi vs Hexanon, you can't go wrong with any. So if they all speak to you, go with the cheapest.

 

[Huck Finn]

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.

Tom, thanks for mentioning Photodo. You got me to re-visit the site. Voila! Have you seen what they've done with the new site? It's been resurrected & reincarnated. If you like to read numbers about lenses, they're still there. But now they have lens reviews & an interactive capability. I'm glad to see that they're back in business. 🙂

BTW, according to phodo, the difference between the 'Cron & the Hex has some significance at f/2 although not much. The numbers are 78 vs 74. These are both great ratings wide open! The 4.6 vs 4.5 ratings are based on an average of f/4 & f/8.

At 38 mm, the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 is shorter than any of the other three 50's - all about 43 mm or so - although it is also wider & doesn't focus quite as close. Sell the CV 50/1.5 & replace it with this one. Then you won't need two 50's. For a compact travel lens, the comment about the retractable hoods on the 'Cron & the Hex is a great point. As a single, do-it-all, very compact travel lens, it's hard to beat the CV 40/1.4 Nokton as was also mentioned above.

Nice choices.

 

[RayPA]

Appreciate the link, Ray. However, I am not sure how representative that particular shot is due to the toning that I applied. This shot may be a better sample, with less processing.

...

I loved the Hexanon, but ended up selling it and keeping a tabbed summicron. Why, because I have gotten used to the tab on my 35/2 ASPH - the common handling makes the shooting more natural for me, especially with prefocusing. In the end, getting the shot quickly was more important to me than any subtle differences in the optical rendering. Whichever you choose to keep will be fine, they are all very fine and capable lenses.

Well I am! 🙂 🙂 IMO, it's represetative, as are the other images you've posted. I think Benilam also shoots with the Hex 50/2. He's got a good size gallery to peruse the Hex look.

.