M-Hexanon 35/2

[mfunnell]

I just received my 35mm on Tuesday (purchased from an RFF member, in a very friend|y transaction) so, of course, I rattled off a roll of film. Despite my ineptitude in trying too many new things at once, and the fairly poor shooting that results from shooting off a test roll, I'm well pleased with the results so far.

Here a couple of shots from the roll:





(Why might I always be taking photos of or in pubs, I wonder?)

The shots are overexposed (I shot Ilford XP2 rated at ISO 320, based on a suggestion here that doesn't look like it works for me). They're very contrasty in both the prints and lab-supplied scans - but I'm not sure if thats the different minilab I tried, or the lens, or overerexposure - or all the above. I tried to tone that down a little in the posted versions.

The lens looks nice and sharp, though, at f2 and f8 in these examples.

Now to use it in more sensible circumstances (and with Kodak BW400CN, which I think I prefer, plus some colour and real BW film)...

...Mike

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I agree with Magus on that the second is really a good composition.

BTW, I have one of these lenses. Forget the Summicron and keep this one.

Only one thing: check the RF patch alignment when focusing to infinity with this lens. With mine, the patch does not align, but the photos I've taken still come up sharp. Otherwise, it's an excellent performer.

Congratulations on your wise purchase! 🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Trius]

(Why might I always be taking photos of or in pubs, I wonder?)

...Mike

Uh, because you're an Aussie?

Good first shots ... thanks for posting. If you post more with traditional b&w or colour, I'd love to see them. In either case you might want to choose film/processing that is lower contrast, at least under those lighting conditions.

Earl

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Mike,

Those shots look very good 🙂

How do you like how it balances size wise? What is a good price for this lens in your estimation?

thanks

 

[ghost]

magus has previously demonstrated that he CAN tell the difference, how he does it i have no idea, but he did it.

where? that, i'd like to see.

 

[x-ray]

I'm curious about the hexanon lenses and camera. Who's a dealer in the US?

 

[rpsawin]

I'm curious about the hexanon lenses and camera. Who's a dealer in the US?

Too late...Konica was purchased by Minolta who did not pick up the Hexar line. K-M has since gone out of the photo-camera business turning it over to Sony. Of course Sony is digital and has no interest in reviving these cameras/lenses. So, watch this group for used lenses and of course there is always e-bay. Another source might be Weber camera (webercamera.com) as Greg does repair on the Konica Hexar cameras and lenses.

I own a Hexar and 4 lenses and think they represent an excellent value and are a great system.

Good Luck,

Bob

 

[back alley]

i was lucky to find a brand new, no box 90 at my local pro shop.

they had it substantially discounted and it was too hard to resist.

joe

 

[KoNickon]

Let's see some results from your next roll, with the Kodak 400CN. The XP2 is a little too contrasty, I think.

Not sure what "Japanesy" means -- too high contrast? Again, I think it's the film more than anything.

 

[amateriat]

X-Ray: Well, as with all things Konica (and Minolta), that M-Hexanon is history in terms of getting one new (although there might be a few NOS floating around somewhere). The 35 f/2 was fairly thin on the ground while it was in production (so was the 28 f/2.8, which I ended up getting instead, but I think they made a few more of those). Of course, any of the M-Hexanons are worth seeking out, although scarcity might drive the 35's asking price up (when new, they fetched around $600, give or take a fifty...almost makes you want to cry now).

Mike: Good shots overall. Don't give up on XP2 just yet: lab scans and prints usually tell me nothing about how a film really works. I've had assorted labs (from pro to minilab) process my XP2 rolls, but I handle everything else from there – I don't even let the labs cut the rolls. I can usually make far better scans and prints with little effort, given the film's latitude. That latitude also helps in terms of less-than-stellar lab souping, but obviously it's best to deal with a lab that's consistent in its output (a good consistency, of course). I find a 320 EI rating to be a decent compromise between extra density and speed, but dropping to 200 is a good idea if you have the light for it. But there's probably more information on your film than the images you posted reveal – it simply takes more care at the scanner to bring that out.


- Barrett

 

[martin-f5]

High Mike,
these first results shows you how superb the lense burns light on your film, now its up to you to learn the corect metering.
I like both photos and I see it's a perfect lens for your "livingroom" 😀

 

[x-ray]

I'm well fixed on lenses but untill recently I didn't even know Konica made anything serious like M lenses. I've got to get out of the studio once in a whild!

 

[amateriat]

I'm well fixed on lenses but untill recently I didn't even know Konica made anything serious like M lenses. I've got to get out of the studio once in a whild!

Oh, that and more. Meet my constant photographic companion:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html

And, since another thread was going on about 90mm optics:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/90hex.html

And so on. But you get the idea.


Barrett

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Don,

I don't have the 35/2, but can heartily recommend all the others, 50/2, 28/2.8, 90/2.8.

In many ways, it is quite amazing that Leica had a competitor that literally equaled Leica standards at a substantial discount. While others applaud the CV line for great optics but relatively lower build quality (debatable), the same cannot be said of the hexanons. They are easily the equal both in optics and build to Leicas. IMO.

 

[mfunnell]

Hey - thanks everyone for the kind words about the photos 😱

As to the handling characteristics of the lens, its a little smaller and lighter than the Hexanon 50/2 and without the hood, its shorter. The hood seems a lot more useful than the built-in plastic one on the 50. The lens intrudes into a very small portion of the lower right of the frame, but not enough to bother me. The venting on the hood helps, in that regard, when its mounted. It has a focus tab, which I didn't take too long to catch on to using. The lens is very well made, and the one I received was in perfect condition (and I don't mean near-perfect).

Because of that, I paid close enough to the "full purchase price" of US$600 mentioned above, which was fair given that this copy was essentially brand-new. Based on my experience (short though it is) with the 50 and some limited research I'd decided I would buy the 35/2 new if I could find it (which, effectively, I did). Of course I hadn't actually expected to find it, so hadn't planned on paying - but when the opportunity arose I couldn't resist.

Thanks also for the note on scanning that XP2 myself. I'd planned on doing that for other reasons (to investigate the apparently better minilab-scan results from BW400CN to see if that's a minilab artifact or something else - even just personal taste). This gives me more motivation to do that soon.

After a few more rolls of film (in circumstances were I can compare directly with earlier results from the 50) should let me dial-in a starting point for best use this lens.

...Mike

 

[ray_g]

$600 was a very good price for that lens IMHO.

 

[ampguy]

it means

it means

"high standards" ...

Let's see some results from your next roll, with the Kodak 400CN. The XP2 is a little too contrasty, I think.

Not sure what "Japanesy" means -- too high contrast? Again, I think it's the film more than anything.

 

[peter_n]

$600 was a very good price for that lens IMHO.

I agree. And what Tom says above is true, most people just don't realize just how good these M-Hexanons are. Lets keep it that way, maybe the prices will stay on the lower side. 😉