KONICA Hexanon 90mm f2.8 M

FPjohn said:
Can anyone rank the Hexanon relative to the Tele-elmarit, Elmarit and current Summicron based on personal experience or objective comparisons (images)?

I suspect, never having used one, that it ranks high on the performance/value curve given the positive opinion of it..

My TE 90mm does well but absolutely requires a hood to avoid horrendous flare.

yours
FPJ
Click to expand...

FPJ,

Among the lenses you mention, I have used v2 and v3 Summicron, v1 Elmarit, Fat and Thin TE, and the Hexanon.

Frankly ... they all perform very well and very similar, with the v1 Elmarit and TE having the lowest contrast - not low at all, just lower than the others. All very cool lenses; I'm usually not bad in distinguishing lens signatures, but it would be hard for me to recognize which lens was taken for a given picture, given the above set.

Among the above, I kept v3 Summicron and Thin TE. The latter due to size, it is significantly smaller than the Hexanon. Different versions of the TE are differently sensitive to flare, and it seems to be sample dependent, too. Due to speed, the v3 Summicron is in a different league alltogether; it's not much more expensive used than the Hexanon, heavier but not much larger and has a really great signature.

If you want something different, try a 75/1.4 or Nikkor 85/2. :)

For sample pictures (including some of mine), please have a look at the M-mount flickr forum.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
trying to gain some of roland's wisdom first-hand, i lost my resolve and bought a hex 90. i will run it alongside my TE and see which one i prefer. would appear that they're alike enough that keeping both wouldn't make sense: same FL, same speed, similar rendering. just more reason to shoot at 90 and burn more film. that's my new year resolution, don'cha know.
 
I would be suprised if after using both you were to reach the conclusion that the tele elmarit and the hex have similar rendering. IMO they look really really really different.
 
wool, i'm excited to find out, thanks. i have the idea that the hex is sonnar-like in its OOF areas, which appeals to me. i really like my canon 50 1.5, for example.
 
Having recently purchased a thin 90 Tele-Elmarit (TE), I ran some test shots and compared them to those taken by my previously owned 90 Hexanon M (Hex). First here's a full frame shot followed by a tight left crop of the same scene with the TE and lastly the Hex, both taken at f/2.8.
 

Attachments

  • 90-TE-f5.6-full.jpg
    90-TE-f5.6-full.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 90-TE-f2.8-crop.jpg
    90-TE-f2.8-crop.jpg
    71.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 90-Hex-f2.8-crop.jpg
    90-Hex-f2.8-crop.jpg
    79.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Same setup but with the TE and the Hex at f/5.6 in that order.
 

Attachments

  • 90-TE-f5.6-crop.jpg
    90-TE-f5.6-crop.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 90-Hex-f5.6-crop.jpg
    90-Hex-f5.6-crop.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
there is another discussion going on now about the tele elmarit where I compared these two lenses and this example totally sums up what I was saying. Looking at these two pictures, it suggests that the hex is low contrast, which it absolutely is not. you just get an absolute black with the TE, the shadow behind the figurine says it all.
 
I avoided posting images of the resolution targets as most people would rather evaluate a regular subject rather than horizontal and vertical line patterns. The charts did reveal the Hexanon to provide virtually identical resolution and contrast from center to corner and resolution was quite high at a minimum of 64-72 lp/mm across the frame. Interestingly, these figures remained fairly consistent regardless of aperture from f/4-8 while f/2.8 was only a little softer. This I believe is quite characterisic of all Ernostar designs that I have used and tested critically. Also included in this class of 90's is the current Elmarit-M, Contax G series Sonnar and the E55 Summicron. The Tele-Elmarit behaved differently starting about as soft wide open as the Hexanon but made significant improvements with each stop through at least f/5.6 reaching central resolution on film of just under 100 lp/mm. Unlike the Hexanon, performance did not remain as strong and even across the frame but gradually softens to the corner to 40 lp/mm. Stopping to f/8 improves performance of most of the frame but makes minimal improvement to the far edge and corner. If I had to pick another Leica lens with a similar fingerprint to complement the TE, it would definitely be the third 50 Summicron version (1969-79) as it behaves in a very similar fashion. One other minor difference I've noted on the Hexanon is the tendency to color fringe ever so slightly wide open compared to the TE. This can be seen as a very slight magenta "glow" around the outline of the figurine on the f/2.8 shots.
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth said:
there is another discussion going on now about the tele elmarit where I compared these two lenses and this example totally sums up what I was saying. Looking at these two pictures, it suggests that the hex is low contrast, which it absolutely is not. you just get an absolute black with the TE, the shadow behind the figurine says it all.
Click to expand...

Can that difference be handled with slightly different exposures ?
 
ferider said:
Can that difference be handled with slightly different exposures ?
Click to expand...

there is nothing you are going to do thats going to make a hex perform like the tele elmarit. Conversely, if you dont like the look of the TE, you are way out of luck as you are stuck with the heavy handed fingerprint of that lens no matter what you do. Id keep the hex as my one all around 90mm in a heartbeat but Id be really bummed to have to give up the TE for whatever reason. When you wan that look, nothing else is going to give it to you.

I never get much into shooting resolution charts and all that as there is way more to a lens than how sharp it is. I think the tele elmarit and elmar-m are prime examples of that idea.
 
I understand.

I sold my Hexanon and kept my Tele Elmarit, and interestingly it lives in the same bag as an Elmar-M and a CV 28/3.5 Color Skopar (which I find generates similar contrast/color/darks). For shooting color, however, mostly landscapes.

For portraits I use f2 lenses anyways, A Nikkor 85/2 if I want the Sonnar/Ernostar look. Note that the closest lens in signature to the 90/2.8 Hexanon that I know is the 150/4 Hasselblad/Zeiss/6x6 Sonnar (an Ernostar really).

Anyways, I still wonder how much the contrast difference you observe has to do with film choice and exposure, and if the TE and Hexanon actually have different transmission, causing the contrast difference.

Thanks,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
If you are looking for sharp images, nothing beats the Hexanon 90mm. I think this was shot @ f5.6 and was on an M8, converted to B&W with Nik Silver Efex Pro.

2947863450_94be601856_b.jpg
 
And some more with different lenses (I have shown these before):

The Hexanon:

175620393_gZW4u-L.jpg


(notice the blacks).

Summicron v3:

223938006_aAFJu-XL.jpg


Nikkor 85/2

195930144_rW8sK-L.jpg


Here is a landscape with the Summicron v3:

223937992_kGxib-XL.jpg


Could you have picked the lens blindly ?

It all depends so much on what you want to do, and what you do in post processing ....

All very competent lenses, IMO.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if it's poor taste to add a question to this post, but I would much appreciate recommendations for a good lens serivicer of M-Hexanon lenses in the US? My 90mm M-Hex has a very slight ammount of haze inside which I worry might get worse over time if I don't have it cleaned. As many of you know, one falls in love with this lens once they have used it, and I just wouldn't trust anyone to work on it.

As ferider has shown above, it is quite a contrasty lens. I plan to add a 50mm to my collection eventually.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if it's poor taste to add a question to this post, but I would much appreciate recommendations for a good lens serivicer of M-Hexanon lenses in the US? My 90mm M-Hex has a very slight ammount of haze inside which I worry might get worse over time if I don't have it cleaned. As many of you know, one falls in love with this lens once they have used it, and I just wouldn't trust anyone to work on it.
Click to expand...

Don Goldberg @ DAG Camera [FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]dagcam@chorus.net[/FONT]

OR

John @ Focal Point Lens [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]john@focalpointlens.com[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][/FONT]
 
Don's one of the best for service and price BUT he's so popular that it'll probably take about 3-4 months to get your lens back from him. Consider Greg Weber who specializes in Konica camera equipment including all Hexar related service.
 
Thank you both for your recommendations. I will check into all of them. I have long used Sherry Krauter in the past for all of my Leica repairs and maintenance, but I don't think (though not sure) she works on alternative brand lenses.
 
Last edited:
If you're talking cleaning up M-Hexanon lenses, most any comeptent shop (I use the word "comptent" advisedly here) should be able to do the job. As far as the Hexar RF body itself is concerned, that's harder, but not impossible: Precision Camera has both Hexars (autofocus and RF) listed among the cameras they service. (Going off on a tangent here, but they also list the Minolta 5400 series film scanners on that list as well. Bookmark it.)



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