Hexar sharpness/ focus

J

jaimiepeeters

Well-known
Local time
4:32 PM
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
264
Hi there

After having shot a few rolls with my Hexar AF, I cannot say that the sharpness of the negatives are THAT amazing as most of the people here claim.

This makes me either wonder if my Hexar is as sharp as it should be or... I'm just not that experienced in film photography and expired films make less sharper images?
 
What do you mean?

I don't quite understand some of the obsession with sharpness, as in Leica lenses are sharper than others. And I can't tell from your post whether you're suspecting camera shake, mis-focusing, or fuzzy lens, all of which look different. Yes, the Hexar can be very sharp but it depends on circumstances. It's not a miracle camera.

Hadfield.jpg


Post pics, and show us!
 
http://severinkoller.at/blog/

Severin Koller is a street photographer from vienna and is using a hexar af for a few moths now.

This is an answer to the question, what lens his favourite street lens is:
I’ve been shooting a 35mm summicron 2nd generation from 2006 to 2010 and a 35mm summilux pre-asph from 2010 to 2011 and since late october 2011 till now with a 35mm f2.0 Hexar AF lens.
I can’t say which one was my favourite.. the summilux was flairing too much imo, the old cron was amazing, bokeh and tone wise and the hexar is quite similar to the cron but actually the best lens when it comes to tricky lighting situations.
I’ve shot a 35mm summicron asph. this lens was the sharpest and contrast was perfect.. although I missed some imperfections… I like lenses that have their own look, just like the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar.
50mm is way too tight for the way i shoot. sometimes i wish i had a 28mm actually… but 35 is the perfect all-rounder. "
 
A good model, and you use old film. I don't understand...

I can only guess, but I would suspect the film or the scanning rather than the camera. Everything is fairly soft here.
 
Paul T. said:
A good model, and you use old film. I don't understand...

I can only guess, but I would suspect the film or the scanning rather than the camera. Everything is fairly soft here.
Click to expand...

I only had expired film to my disposal. This model I shot with a Fuji X100 as well. As I'm still in the 'getting to learn to shoot film' stage I played it safe with the X100.

Now, I also scanned a roll from a Yashica T5 and that was tack x10 sharp!

Here I have a shot that I edited quite a bit so its not the original file, also taken with the Hexar.
(also expired film, but Provia 100)

gail-filmfix5.jpg
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
Those series show indeed that the lens is less sharp than the summicrons. So if you want sharpness/rendering as from a Leitz lens, ... I would say....go Leitz...
Click to expand...

Well I must say that on his blog most of the images seem to have been shot while moving or walking-stop-quickly shoot and go and perhaps even on slow S.
 
Jaimie,

Through here or via other internet media I bought a lot of rangerfindercameras and lenses to try out. A lot of them, e.g. a Hexar RF, were sold not much later, since I didn't like the end result. I even didn't ask others how there experience was since I wasn't happy with the camera (I lateron also sold the R-D1s for that same reason). So what people here say is I think quite relative, and can't take away your own good or bad experience.
From what I see in the series is that hardly any picture would be up to what I want, but what I want is - almost for sure - not the same what others want and therefore a different matter. So my advice is, try some other camera's as well, look at the difference and decide what to use and what not
 
Not good tests. That's a wonderful model we almost saw enough of. I don't think the Hexar lens is so very sharp. In many situations it seems so sharp because of the high contrast. There are many contributors to perceived sharpness.
 
Sharpness is an effect of lens/film/development method/scanning etc
There could be any issue with any of these elements, hard to say what is wrong with your example. Hexar AF is as sharp as anyone would need and anyone who thinks they can see the difference between a Hexar AF and any non-asph is fooling themsleves.

Maybe you are pushing the film too much, or maybe indeed your lens might be faulty, who knows.
 
all I wanted to know is if you guys could see by the examples I shared if expired film can make your images soft... if thats the case in my example.
 
jaimiepeeters said:
all I wanted to know is if you guys could see by the examples I shared if expired film can make your images soft... if thats the case in my example.
Click to expand...

Jamie, in the cases I worked with expired color film, I didn't get changes in sharpness, only in color casts... but others might feel different about that
 
It's hard to know what's at fault using "real world" images. To remove any doubt and to check over your equipment, I'd say it's best just to sacrifice a fresh roll of, say Ektar 100 or slide film which you know can produce good results, put the camera on a tripod and do the brick wall/newspaper/real world scene. If you have another body/lens you are happy with, shoot alongside to compare. Until you test your own equipment, you'll always have that niggling feeling in the back of your mind.
 
It looks wrong Jamie.

Do some tests. The AF focusing can be adjusted by the user if you know the un-documented commands to do so. Maybe somebody messed it up. On the other hand, it can be fixed easily.

Resolution-wise the Hexar lens is better in the center than a pre-asph Summicron. But it has some barrel distortion.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom