msbarnes
Well-known
So I'm wanting a Hexar AF or possibly a Leica/Minolta CL + Cron/Rokkor 40.
The main reason for purchasing one of these cameras is for a relatively inexpensive but moderately fast low-light shooter in the 35mm-40mm focal length range.
I've owned the Hex so I know that it doesn't disappoint, but I have not owned the CL/Cron.
For those that own / have owned both of these cameras/lenses, what is your impression:
1. What do you think of the lenses? The Hexanon is plenty good-enough for me...my only minor complaint is that the contrast is a tad high (but nothing to deter me from getting another one). My thinking is that the cron/rokkor is going to be just as sharp (or sharper?) and the differences in contrast will be slight. My main concern for this lens is the bokeh.
2. What do you think of the CL as a low-light shooter? Is focusing 40 f2 difficult? Is holding the camera at slow shutter speeds a challenge?
The main reason for purchasing one of these cameras is for a relatively inexpensive but moderately fast low-light shooter in the 35mm-40mm focal length range.
I've owned the Hex so I know that it doesn't disappoint, but I have not owned the CL/Cron.
For those that own / have owned both of these cameras/lenses, what is your impression:
1. What do you think of the lenses? The Hexanon is plenty good-enough for me...my only minor complaint is that the contrast is a tad high (but nothing to deter me from getting another one). My thinking is that the cron/rokkor is going to be just as sharp (or sharper?) and the differences in contrast will be slight. My main concern for this lens is the bokeh.
2. What do you think of the CL as a low-light shooter? Is focusing 40 f2 difficult? Is holding the camera at slow shutter speeds a challenge?
back alley
IMAGES
not that i ever noticed but i think the 40 has a few critics when it comes to bokeh...i preferred the handling on my cle to the konica...
the konica was not a favourite though because of the slow shutter speed...
lens wise it's really a toss up.
the konica was not a favourite though because of the slow shutter speed...
lens wise it's really a toss up.
stompyq
Well-known
The bokeh on the cron-c was the only reason i got rid of it. Otherwise great lens and combo. Very sharp. The hexar has better bokeh but not by much. The speeds are a pain (1/250 highest)
porktaco
Well-known
i love my cron 40 and don't have any bad bokeh issues.
stompyq
Well-known
You have a cle?? Any chance you could bring it in april for the meetup?? (sorry for the hijack, OP)
msbarnes
Well-known
whoah. Has the Hexar AF gone down in price (X100/X100s is the reason, perhaps?)? I see that a few black ones have sold on ebay for ~$300 and even less.
I decided that the Hex is the camera that I probably want. i think wider is more useful for the type of photography that I am thinking and from some RFF threads, I think that the Hex bokeh is better.
I decided that the Hex is the camera that I probably want. i think wider is more useful for the type of photography that I am thinking and from some RFF threads, I think that the Hex bokeh is better.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Bob is selling a Hexar AF without a flash foot in the classifieds. It's even under USD 300 IIRC.
Just sayin'!
Just sayin'!
ferider
Veteran
Sergio, I've used AF, 40 Summicron and CL and CLE Rokkors. Bokeh, resolution and such, you will be hard pressed to find a difference. The biggest difference is in the distortion department, the Hexar AF, UC Hexanon, and their "grand-mother", the Nikkor 35/1.8 have noticable barrel distortion at close focus. 40 Summicron and Rokkor are rectinear, however, no distortion to speak of.
back alley
IMAGES
had...3 of them over the years...fantastic little cameras...in my opinion way better than the cl...
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I have both, I heard about the general feeling that the 40mm Cron's bokeh is not nice but I like it. For me both are great performers, the main difference being the feeling you have while shooting. Usually I prefer manual everything but in this comparison for some reason I always en up using the Konica. I am not sure why but for some reason the small Leica is just a bit toot small to feel comfortable and not small enough to be pocketable, on the other hand the Hexar can be grabbed properly and has a few functions, notably the silent mode, which makes it more attractive to me. Unless the bokeh problem is really a problem for you (you can check images on the web for this) I think that the decision boils down to deciding which one is more confortable for you.
GLF
GLF
msbarnes
Well-known
yes, saw that last night. very tempting! But I don't want to jump too soon...deals come and go so I want to let this idea sit and see which I'd prefer.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The CL has long been one of my favorite Leica bodies, and I've had both M-Rokkor 40s, the Summicron-C 40, and a Hexar AF over the years. Neat as the Hexar is, I prefer the rangefinder.
Of the three 40s, the differences are small to non-existent. Never found the bokeh bad at all. My current CL is almost always fitted with the M-Rokkor 40/2 gen II, which was original equipment on the Minolta CLE. It differs most from the other two by having multi coating.
G
Of the three 40s, the differences are small to non-existent. Never found the bokeh bad at all. My current CL is almost always fitted with the M-Rokkor 40/2 gen II, which was original equipment on the Minolta CLE. It differs most from the other two by having multi coating.
G
muf
Well-known
I've owned both. Had a CLE with cron. Thought that combination was better than the Hexar. Didn't like the Hexar. The CLE just flowed in my hands and was a joy to use. Sold them both though. Affection mostly is temporary...
Paul
Paul