My experience with M-Hexanons on the M8

[ferider]

There is a secret to M/LTM Hexanons that nobody ever tells you. And Puts is considered to give Leica lenses favors so people disregard his technical description.

While M-Hexanons work at infinity on a Leica body at full performance (registration distance is correct), a Leica body's RF cam needs to be adjusted ever so slightly (when compared to using Leica lenses). This will be noticeably in particular on an M3.

If you use M-Hexanons only, or have your camera adjusted to the longest lens you use, the difference hardly matters in practice - it is either consistent across your Hexanons, or covered by the DOF. But if you want maximum lens performance, I do not recommend to use M-Hexanons and other lenses together on the same body.

If you use L-Hexanon lenses (that have the same RF cam calibration as M-Hexanons, in my experience) you can adjust them by grinding the adapter. Like this:

Again, the lens worked fine with a normal adapter (DOF covered the error), but to get the L-Hex's 50/2.4 max. performance, the adapter had to be modified.

I'll certainly get flamed now by M-Hex lovers .... But all my Hexanons behaved like this (several 50/2 and 90/2.8 copies, and the above 50/2.4).

Don't get me wrong, the above customization, or dedicating a body to Hexanons is very much worth it, they are stunning performers - all of them.

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

well

well

some of those "other" lens do get complaints:

e.g. Zeiss 50/1.5, Leica 35 lux asph (pre FLE), lux 50/1.4 asph (pre adjusting), CVs (most) ...

If someone starts with a sonnar or focus shifting lens, chances are they'll send all their good lenses in to match the focus of that first lens.

Then, they may decide to sell the lens to a normal person. Well while they focused fine for the Sonnar user, who was used to doing nods, or OOF photos, they work wrong for regular users., IMHO...

no, the 90 was from classiccamera.at (very friendly people, btw), the 50 was from a forum member (dslr-forum.de) and the 28 from SH photo (German shop). So three different sources.

If ALL the M-Hex in existance would back focus, I would understand it. But that makes no sense that only some work. Maybe Konica changed something during their production? I would love to try your Hex on my M8, but I bet they would be spot on, as otherwise there would be a lot of complaints with Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. too.

 

[ampguy]

Here's another thought - perhaps the ones shipped to Germany were offset a bit, since folks there like Sonnar focus shifting lenses? Zeitgeist!!

 

[ampguy]

well

well

Ken Rockwell agrees with this ... 😉

Should I start posting all my perfectly focused M-Hex photos now, or later 😀

There is a secret to M/LTM Hexanons that nobody ever tells you. And Puts is considered to give Leica lenses favors so people disregard his technical description.

While M-Hexanons work at infinity on a Leica body at full performance (registration distance is correct), a Leica body's RF cam needs to be adjusted ever so slightly (when compared to using Leica lenses). This will be noticeably in particular on an M3.

If you use M-Hexanons only, or have your camera adjusted to the longest lens you use, the difference hardly matters in practice - it is covered by the DOF. But if you want maximum lens performance, I do not recommend to use M-Hexanons and other lenses together on the same body.

If you use L-Hexanon lenses (that have the same RF cam calibration as M-Hexanons, in my experience) you can adjust them by grinding the adapter. Like this:

Again, the lens worked fine with a normal adapter (DOF covered the error), but to get the L-Hex's 50/2.4 max. performance, the adapter had to be modified.

I'll certainly get flamed now by M-Hex lovers .... But all my M-Hex lenses have behaved like this (several 50/2 and 90/2.8 copies, and the above 50/2.4).

Roland.

 

[kanzlr]

I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently 🙂

 

[ampguy]

something to ponder

something to ponder

What if you adjusted your RF to work right with the Hexanons (without tape), would your other lenses still work? I'm guessing they might be more accurate than you think they are now.

I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently 🙂

 

[ferider]

I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently 🙂

Why ? I'm exactly confirming what you measured with tape. At infinity the tape doesn't matter. Closer, it's the same thing as adjusting the RF cam with an allen wrench. Oh well.

 

[MCTuomey]

Am curious about the cost for re-shimming or adjusting. Kanzir, please report back.

i was quoted $90 to inspect/adjust/shim an m-hex 50/2 about a year ago

 

[ampguy]

just curious, did we all take into account that an m3 is not the same as an m8?

 

[kevin m]

I wonder what your definition of back focus is?

back focus = the area BEHIND the subject is in sharper focus than the area you focused on.

There's some overlap in how these terms are used, but "back focus" usually refers to some misadjustment in the FFD (flange focal distance, which is the distance from the mounting flange of the lens to the film or sensor plane of the camera,) that would cause the image to be focused either forward or behind the film plane. What you're describing seems to be a compatibility issue between the rangefinder mechanism of your camera and your lenses.

 

[MCTuomey]

roland, you are a brave fellow 😉

 

[naruto]

Why ? I'm exactly confirming what you measured with tape. At infinity the tape doesn't matter. Closer, it's the same thing as adjusting the RF cam with an allen wrench. Oh well.

Roland, I have an incoming 35/2 UC Hex. Will it be a problem using it on the M6? I am planning to use a FotoDiox adapter. My query is, with the wider angle lenses, will the DoF make-up for the change in flange to film distance?

 

[bwcolor]

Don't have an M8 but my M-Hex 90mm, 50mm f/1.2 had some major backfocus with my M3. The M3 and both lenses are with Don. I also have the M-Hex 50mm f/2.0 and it seems OK, but I need to go back and check more carefully. I have lots of other Zeiss, CV and Leica lenses that focus just fine on a number of bodies, including that particular M3.

 

[Krosya]

I wonder why M8 is the one that people have issues most when using Hexanons on it? I have 50/2, 50/1.2, 28/2.8, 35/2, 90/2.8 Hexanons now and had several copies of each of these lenses (other than 50/1.2) in the past and ALL focus fine on M5, Bessas, Hexar RFs and RD1S. And I like to use them wide open and at close distance. Is there something with M8 design that is so different? Cause if it was just a "digital sensor" thing, wouldnt I have this problem on Rd1S as well?

 

[ampguy]

My guess

My guess

is that M8 photographers look at their images right away and notice if somethings up.

Film photographers, sometimes great ones, like Garry W. will have a backlog of up to 1/2 million, so since they're not getting real time feedback, they just start imagining what the pictures might look like through their RF/VFs. The M7 is probably at the current spec. the M3's are mostly out of spec by now, due to their age.

M3s don't focus closer than 1m. If yours does, you've probably thrown it out of whack for infinity.

I wonder why M8 is the one that people have issues most when using Hexanons on it? I have 50/2, 50/1.2, 28/2.8, 35/2, 90/2.8 Hexanons now and had several copies of each of these lenses (other than 50/1.2) in the past and ALL focus fine on M5, Bessas, Hexar RFs and RD1S. And I like to use them wide open and at close distance. Is there something with M8 design that is so different? Cause if it was just a "digital sensor" thing, wouldnt I have this problem on Rd1S as well?

 

[Krosya]

is that M8 photographers look at their images right away and notice if somethings up.

Film photographers, sometimes great ones, like Garry W. will have a backlog of up to 1/2 million, so since they're not getting real time feedback, they just start imagining what the pictures might look like through their RF/VFs. The M7 is probably at the current spec. the M3's are mostly out of spec by now, due to their age.

M3s don't focus closer than 1m. If yours does, you've probably thrown it out of whack for infinity.

Wouldnt Bessas and RD1S have the current specs too? Yet I have no problems with my Hexanons on them.😕

 

[ampguy]

probably

probably

Not sure about Bessas, but the RD1 and derivatives from the beginning supported M-Hexanons, to the max.

Wouldnt Bessas and RD1S have the current specs too? Yet I have no problems with my Hexanons on them.😕

 

[rpsawin]

I have 4 Hexanon-M's and have no problems with them on film or digital bodies. Here is what Mr. Gandy has to say:



Some Hexar RF users report focusing problems with Leica M lenses, others do not. How could that happen?

The EXACT cause of this is a hot source of controversy on the net. Konica is not helping the situation. So far, I have received different answers from every Konica employee I have discussed the issue with. Konica USA offered to adjust the rangefinder of my camera, but admitted this would not be a complete solution. I am told Konica UK actually offers to correct Hexar RF bodies to Leica M specs, for a fee. Konica USA seems to give me a different answer every time I talk with them.

Some people swear nothing is wrong with the Hexar RF with Leica M lenses, because THEIR camera has had no problems. Others report focusing problems. Personally MY Hexar RF did NOT have correct back focus specs for Leica M lenses -- I had it repaired.

I believe the KEY to the controversy is the INCONSISTENCY -- some people have back focus problems, others swear THEY do not. How could that happen?

As suggested to me by a Konica insider, the answer may be the plus/minus tolerances used by Konica. In this scenario, depending upon how a particular camera body's set of parts tolerances add up, that particular camera MAY or MAY NOT exit the factory with back focus specs within Leica lens tolerances. I am not sure this is the solution, but I know of no other explanation which satisfactorily explains the inconsistent results reported by Konica Hexar RF shooters.

Some internet sites make a seemingly strong argument that there is NO Hexar RF back focus problem. Ask yourself a few questions before you buy into that line of thinking:

Hexar RF problems came into the public eye because SOME, not all, Hexar RF owners definitely were not getting sharp shots with the same lens on their RF, as they were from Leica bodies. If there was no problem with the RF, what was the cause of these focusing problems?

If there is no problem, why does Konica UK offer a repair service to adjust Hexar bodies to focus Leica M lenses?

If there is no problem, how did the Konica factory correct it on MY Hexar RF?

If there is no problem, why hasn't Konica publicly said the Hexar RF is fully 100% compatible with Leica M lenses? This controversy is obviously hurting Hexar RF sales. It would be to Konica's advantage to deny it and put the question to rest, IF there was no problem. Instead, Konica has publicly side stepped the issue, saying that the Hexar RF is compatible with the Konica "KM" mount. I interpret Konica's stance as another way of saying "We are not promising Leica M compatibility, because we don't want to pay for a camera recall."

Do you see any of the sites claiming there is no problem, offering to buy back or repair Hexar RF's bought on THEIR recommendation which turn out NOT to correctly focus Leica M lenses?

If you own a Hexar RF, or plan to buy one, I suggest taking it to a Leica repairman, and have them check the film plane and focusing accuracy, just to be sure -- ideally with both Konica and Leica mount lenses.

Quick and Dirty Hexar Back Focus RF test: With your RF mounted on a tripod, focus on INFINITY wide open with your WIDEST lenses. The Voigtlander 12 and 15 are especially useful to spot if your Hexar RF is not up to standard Leica M mount back focus specs. As a control point, shoot the same shots with a Leica M body you know to be in good shooting condition. Compare with a loupe. IF the results are identical, wonderful. IF you get different results with the same lens on different bodies, consider having the back focus of your Hexar RF checked by a repair tech.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Keith]

From memory I had a couple of lenses that back focused on my M8 ... 35mm f1.2 Nokton and I think my 50mm f2 Hex was a bit out also.

I didn't use my 50mm f1.2 Canon on it often but did note that it appeared to be perfect when I did.

This is where the digtal M body falls down a little IMO. It didn't worry me too much to be honest because I'm no pixel peeper and there's other aspects to a good photo aside from sharpness ... but having a range of M mount lenses that can all behave slightly differently on a supposedly standardised platform is weird. I can focus my D700 perfectly with any F mount lens that will fit it!

 

[kanzlr]

What if you adjusted your RF to work right with the Hexanons (without tape), would your other lenses still work? I'm guessing they might be more accurate than you think they are now.

hm. The Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is spot on, the Hex 90 focusses 1cm behind. The Rokkor is the same, spot on at f2, while the 50 Hex is approx 1cm behind the subject.

The camera was just adjusted by Leica and it is indeed spot on with the Leica lenses so why should I adjust it to the Hex lenses? I am sure it would front focus with the Leicas then.

And re the back focus thing: it IS back focus if it is focusing behind the subject no matter how far it is away. The untaped lens is not sharp at further distances wide open, but it is when taped. and it focuses spot on when tape up close, also. so it seems the cam needs to protrude 0.05mm more into the body.