M-Hexanon 35mm f2 (not the UC in L-Mount)

[reala_fan]

Ok gang...

I have my CV 35/2.5 PII and I must say, it has proven to be a very nice, sharp daytime lens.

I also have an M-Hexanon 50mm f2.0 and I think it's a fantastic lens.

So I am looking for opinions here, please...

Would I love the M-Hexanon 35mm f2.0 more than the CV 35/2.5 PII?

Or should I stay where I am?

Let's don't consider the "1/2 stop faster" of the M-Hex 35 as a factor...just clarity/sharpness.

If you have the lens in question and could post some examples. I'd appreciate it.

..

 

[ferider]

I have long considered the same choice. The M-Hex 35/2 is the only M-Hex lens that was designed by Konica from scratch. Outstanding performer, in every respect.

In the end I kept the PII as day-time, high-performance, "clean" 35. Due to size. In my eyes picking either is only a matter of size, speed, price and filter size. And getting a good sample. If you are happy with your PII, I suggest to keep it. Maybe look for a second 35 with different character.

Here are samples in the flickr M-mount forum:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/KonicaHexanon35mmf2.0

Roland.

 

[Krosya]

I have both. Well, my CV is the original Pancake one. I did try PII and a Classic but somehow P is the one I prefer. They say they should all be the same optically, yet ....
Anyway. M-Hex 35/2 lens is very very good. In many ways it reminds me of Summilux ASPH 35, just not 1.4 and not ASPH. Yet shape, and optics are very similar.
I like it better than UC-Hex - as it focuses closer and has much nicer bokeh. I did have some pics posted from it a while back in some thread. Here are a few I can find right away:

Yet it's more expensive and pretty hard to find. A bit larger than CV lens.
Personally, I dont use mine as much as I should, but cant bring myself up to sell it - it's that good and rare. I'd definatelly recommend Hex M35.

 

[Krosya]

More Hex M35:

 

[Krosya]

My photos may not really show what this lens can do, so check out more pics from it here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-hexanon35/

 

[sanmich]

the Hex is HUGE compared to the skopar.
It is built better, although the skopar is not bad.
The image quality of both is excellent.
For me, it's a question of
price
speed
bulk
build

I decided that the almost-one stop faster of the hex was important and when I was proposed a good deal by a fellow RFFer, I went for the Hex.
BTW, even on paper, f/2.5 is more than one stop away from f/2, and I read somewhere (yeah, on the web, so it could be bulls) that the sokpar is closer to f/2.8 than to 2.5.
At any account, f/2 is critical for me, because it allows me to handle most indoor situations @ 1/30 sec with tri-x...

 

[flip]

Not to go off topic (much), but I faced a similar choice when I saw the M locally at a very reasonable price. I already have the CV 35/1.2, which is a fine lens and not much larger than the Hex. In the end, the $100 more I paid for my used 1.2 lens seemed the way to go.

 

[Krosya]

Got around to shoot my M-Hex 35/2 again. Here are a few pics:

 

[SolaresLarrave]

My Hexanon was the lens always attached to one of my M6TTL cameras until I got an Elmarit 28mm and a 'lux 35mm. Then, it moved to my M4-2, and I use it still a lot, as it's fairly large, yet easy to handle and sharp as a tack wide open.

The only "problem" is that, when turned to infinite, the rangefinder coincident images don't quite match. Otherwise, it's a great lens. Most of my 35mm shots were made with my Hexanon. It's traveled with me all over the place, so I can attest to built quality.

I bought it pristine... but it ain't pristine no more; there are some small spots where the paint has fallen. But then, now it has a lot of character. 🙂

 

[Krosya]

a couple more:

 

[Krosya]

 

[Krosya]

 

[StuartR]

I had this lens for awhile -- I bought it when I was living in Japan. It is excellent and I only sold it because I finally decided to buy a 35/1.4 ASPH (back in 2005 I guess). I tested them together and could not discern any notable difference other than the Leica being one stop faster. The 35/2 M-Hexanon is an extremely good lens...the only issue is that there are a number of extremely good 35mm lenses between f/2 and 2.8 these days! The Summarit 35/2.5 is also extraordinarily good and much smaller, the ZM 35/2 is supposed to be superb as well, though I have not used it. Then you have the 35/2.8 ZM and the Voigtlander 35mm's...it leaves the 35/2 M-Hexanon as an unusual choice. But if you go for it, you will not regret it...I have had the 35/2, 90/2.8 and 50/1.2 M-Hexanons and all of them were every bit as good as their competitors.

 

[dh-photo]

Filter size?

Filter size?

Hey guys, what filter size does the 35mm use? The 50mm uses an odd size (40.5mm) but the 28mm and 90mm uses 46mm filters (ah, a bit more normal).

Would be nice to know, before an eventual purchase!

Best,
David

 

[kevin m]

I bought it pristine... but it ain't pristine no more;

Good to hear, Francisco!

what filter size does the 35mm use?

46mm

 

[35mmdelux]

apples & oranges.

 

[ChrisC]

Make what you will of the following:

I have no experience of the 35mm Hex., but I have experience of the 35mm Colour Skopar, and the 50mm f2.0 Hex. on the M8.

When I bought the Colour Skopar I thought it was a nice, sharp, well behaved lens and it served me well for some time until a change in my way of working made me doubt it's [particularly] far distance rendering. The definition from the 50 f2.0 Hex. always impressed me as superior to the Colour Skopar and of a very high quality.

I bought the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon, and I am amazed by how good this lens is --- a lens for life! I really didn't expect the C-Biogon to be even better than my M-Hex. but it is, and has become my lens-cap lens.

I don't know how the two Hex lenses compare with each other, but given that you don't seem to be a fast-lens obsessive I suspect you too could fall for the many charms of the fabulous 35mm C-Biogon; it might be a better option for you than the 35mm Hex..

.............. Chris