Purchased M-Hexanon 35mm vs UC Hexanon 35mm

[shawn]

I purchased what was advertised as a M-Hexanon 35mm but while I was unwrapping it I was surprised how tiny the lens was.

Turns out I received a UC-Hexanon 35mm with coded LTM adapter on it.

Main use would be on a m240 (with M-Hexanon 50 and 90mms) but I do also have a IIIG I could use this on.

Any thoughts? How does the M-Hexanon 35mm and UC Hexanon compare?

I'm sure I could return the lens if I decide to. Should I?

Thanks,

Shawn

 

[johannielscom]

The UC is as good as the M-Hexanon and more valuable.
Should easily be a couple of $100 more.

 

[aizan]

yeah, keep it. you just scored a good deal!

 

[shawn]

Thanks, I will try and give it a workout this weekend. Looking at ebay there were 2 that sold for about 65% more than I paid for this one and a few more listed at more than 2x as much, though I don't have the hood.

That is encouraging. 🙂

Shawn

 

[Dante_Stella]

Gift horses.

 

[shawn]

Gotcha, I hadn't really looked at the UCs before so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't the other way around.

Thanks,

Shawn

 

[helen.HH]

The UC is ‘the One’ to have !
Beautiful lens in build and rendering

More sought after
The lowest price I have seen $1280.00 otherwise prices run far higher

Post some photos made with Miss 35 UC please

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Never get rid of it. I am sorry I sold mine and I don't feel like I will ever have the opportunity to get another without pawning a major organ.

Phil Forrest

 

[alan davus]

It's the one lens in my armoury I'll never sell. A sparkling little jewel. Go out and buy a lottery ticket...PS. I have the proper lens hood but rarely use it because of the size. Just get a cheap generic knock off.

 

[raid]

Ken Rockwell said: If you're counting pixels, its performance is clearly inferior to Leica's own current 35mm lenses, but superior to Leica's f/3.5 SUMMARON lenses of the 1940s and 1950s.... The optical performance of this Konica is better than most SLR lenses, but still inferior to the LEICA lenses this Konica attempts to copy.

I don't know this guy! He may not be the most knowledgeable person on lenses.

Congrats on your lens purchase!

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

Congratulations. You received a gift before the Christmas.

 

[Bille]

I'm sure I could return the lens if I decide to. Should I?

Thanks,

Shawn

Sure, the seller made a mistake and could have fetched a few hundred $ more if listed correctly.

 

[philosli]

Ken Rockwell said: If you're counting pixels, its performance is clearly inferior to Leica's own current 35mm lenses, but superior to Leica's f/3.5 SUMMARON lenses of the 1940s and 1950s.... The optical performance of this Konica is better than most SLR lenses, but still inferior to the LEICA lenses this Konica attempts to copy.

I don't know this guy! He may not be the most knowledgeable person on lenses.

Congrats on your lens purchase!

If the lens has the same optical design as Konica Hexar's, I would say its biggest weakness is its barrel distortion. It's pretty pronounced. Once I started to see it, I cannot unsee 🙁

Another interesting thing is Konica Hexar's auto-focus system measures distance and thus takes advantage of that to auto-adjust the lens's focus shift. I don't know how the focus shift affect its use on a manual focused, rangefinder camera..

 

[jonmanjiro]

If the lens has the same optical design as Konica Hexar's, I would say its biggest weakness is its barrel distortion. It's pretty pronounced. Once I started to see it, I cannot unsee 🙁

The UC Hex is the same lens as the Konica Hexar lens, so the barrel distortion is the same. Loved everything about my (now sold) UC Hex except the barrel distortion. Once I saw it, I couldn't unsee it either.

 

[Archlich]

I have both. The UC-Hexanon, being a wide angle and f/2 Xenotar in design, exhibit focus shift between f/4-f/5.6 clearly visible on digital rangefinders. The Hexar design document describes the lens as deliberately under-designed in this regard to keep the size down. On a Hexar the camera would automatically compensate the focus distance at mid aperture (i.e. at f/4 the lens would actually focus at 20 meters if the rangefinder reads infinity) to give optimal result, but such mechanism is not available in the standalone versions. So beware when you shoot distant objects. Also mentioned by others the barrel distortion is fairly obvious.

But it surely is a lovely lens, exquisitely made and weighs under 100 grams. I'm on my 2nd one now. On film it usually does a good job at all apertures since you can't pixel peep. With digital I add 0.3mm (aluminum tape) to the shim (LTM adatper) and the shift looks somehow less pronounced, at least with my sample.

The M-Hexanon 35/2 is unique among 35mm M mount lenses. It's a near-symmetrical retrofocus design very similar to the M-Hexanon 28/2.8, which in itself is almost identical to the Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 pre-ASPH. This means it's a flat and highly corrected lens. Not too contrasty since it handles everything in a very balanced way. No focus shift at all apertures. There isn't really any hard flaws except perhaps some samples would not focus correctly on a digital Leica out of box (the Konica-Leica incompatibility myth is partially true). The cure is easy, since the shim adjustment is a simple operation that could be done by any reasonably competent technician. You could even DIY since the M-Hexanon lenses are designed to be adjustment-friendly.

It's large, but isn't quite that heavy. At 255 grams it's on the same weight level as the Leica 35/2 ASPH and even a bit shorter than the ZM 35/2. The build quality is like what people said - equals to if not better than contemporary Leicas. Ergonomics is perfect. Its fat barrel pairs with the M240/262 brick particularly well...