Konica 35mm f2 UC and the 35mm f2 KM Hexanon

scorpius73

scorpius73

Well-known
Local time
4:49 PM
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
589
The small size of the UC Hexanon intrigues me. I already have the 35mm KM Hexanon. What I would like to know is how do they differ in distortion and sharpness wide open? I love the KM Hexanon but I could go for the UC Hexanon.
 
Used them both.
LOVED the UC Hexanon.
Sometimes wish I hadn't sold it.
I got the faster Voigtlander 35/1.2 for it...
 
scorpius73 said:
The small size of the UC Hexanon intrigues me. I already have the 35mm KM Hexanon. What I would like to know is how do they differ in distortion and sharpness wide open? I love the KM Hexanon but I could go for the UC Hexanon.
Click to expand...

I have never seen the 35mm M-Hexanon. I am a huge fan of the 35mm UC-Hexanon. Educated guess: Since the UC-Hexanon lens is LTM, it should work without any focus correction needed as folks claim for the M-Hexanon lenses. That said, I do own the 28mm M-Hexanon lens. It's a keeper too.

Good luck!

Wayne
 
I don't say this just because I am selling a UC-hexanon but...

It is the nicest 35mm lens I have used, solid build, good performance and light weight. I think the only "better" performing lenses are the Zeiss Biogon, KM-hexanon and the Leica ASPH, but all are larger.
 
The UC-Hexanon has noticeable barrel distortion, and is sufficiently sharp wide open.

Exceptionally well built it is.
 
Archlich said:
The UC-Hexanon has noticeable barrel distortion, and is sufficiently sharp wide open.

Exceptionally well built it is.
Click to expand...

I was about to mention the barrel distortion. But, with that said, it is one of my favorite lenses - beautiful rendition, solid, small!
 
the KM 35/2 draws a little sharper and more clinical (closer to a cron ASPH) the UC-draws closer to a 35 1.8 nikkor (or cron IV), it is smaller has the LTM as added value imo, and has that nice blackpaint, which makes you look at leica used leica MP's , the UC is one of the best out there.

I had the KM for a short while, sold it, now I want both... :)
 
If you look at some older threads - we compared these two before.
I used to have both. Both are great. Each has it's own "better" side. Main reason I sold UC - didnt focus close enough. Main reason I sold M - it was a bit too large and I already have 35/1.2 for a large 35mm. Otherwise - awsome lenses!
 
maitani said:
the KM 35/2 draws a little sharper and more clinical (closer to a cron ASPH) the UC-draws closer to a 35 1.8 nikkor (or cron IV), it is smaller has the LTM as added value imo, and has that nice blackpaint, which makes you look at leica used leica MP's , the UC is one of the best out there.

I had the KM for a short while, sold it, now I want both... :)
Click to expand...

Spot ON!!! I can't concur any more....



 
I got all these two lens. You will not regret to own them. And I can say they are the best quality among Japanese manufacturers. Especially the Konica UC-Hexanon 35mm f2 in limited edition. : )
 
KEVIN-XU 愛 forever;1928261 said:
I got all these two lens. You will not regret to own them. And I can say they are the best quality among Japanese manufacturers. Especially the Konica UC-Hexanon 35mm f2 in limited edition. : )
Click to expand...

They are the best quality period. End of story. Would anyone care to predict the current price of the Leitz v.4 35/2.0 Summicron if they had only made 1,000? Even then, the Leitz lens couldn't match the black enamel finish and the hood of the UC-Hexanon.

Konica. The most over looked & under valued lenses on earth.

Wayne
 
My uc-hexanon 35 is so light and fast and beautifully finished, with tabbed focussing and firm aperture ring indents that it spends a lot of time on my MP and M8. No focus shift, either. Did I say how light it is? I dont have any complaints about the image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom