Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I don't think you get a lot out of duplicating focal lengths; you might supplement a 35mm with a varifocal lens (M-Hexanon dual or Tri-Elmar), but there is little reason to have two of the same prime. I use the 21-35 Dual and a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, and that's all I ever need. Probably more than I really need, considering that I own two other fixed 21s.
If you think you want something smaller, grab a 40 M-Rokkor - that is tiny, is almost the same focal length, bokeh produces like a 35/2 Summicron 4, and is very cheap.
Dante
If you think you want something smaller, grab a 40 M-Rokkor - that is tiny, is almost the same focal length, bokeh produces like a 35/2 Summicron 4, and is very cheap.
Dante
agoglanian
Reconnected.
What about the opposite, if you have the Zeiss 35mm Biogon would you trade it out for the Hexanon 35?
scorpius73
Well-known
In the end I kept the Konica 35mm and added the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. I like the options it gives me. I can take a slow 50 and add the 35mm f1.4 or take a fast 50 and add the Konica 35mm. I don't get payed for my images so it's just fun to play with different lenses.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Scrap em all and get a 35mm f2 UC Hexanon instead.
Dguebey
Amateur
I have the M-Hexanon 35/2.0 for years, and from time to time feel excited by GAS. But then, examining coldly and balancing everything and for each criteria, never find a lens decisively better. And I keep the M-Hexanon.
james.liam
Well-known
You might need to take a look at the upcoming CV 35 APO then.
twvancamp
Thom
Can any M-Hex 35/2 owners give an indication of its size? I can't find a measurement online. Would like to compare it to the Zeiss 35/2.8
Thanks!
Thanks!
james.liam
Well-known
Hilmersen
Established
Not sure how to describe the size. The m-hex 35 is a great lens. I would keep that. It has a slightly larger filter diameter (46mm), but it is small enough so that I can use a lowe pro compact camera pouch for the leica+lens. What I like about all the konica lenses except the 90 (m28,m35 and m50) is that they are very well behaved, and excellent build. The focus does not get hard when it is cold, they are sharp, and have smooth bookeh - what is not to like?
Hilmersen
Established
But that is not the m-hex....
james.liam
Well-known
This is the M Hexanon
twvancamp
Thom
Sorry should have specified I'm curious about the newer (?) M-Hex model.
Good to hear. I have the 50/2... it is my favorite M mount lens. Would like to add the 35 but am worried it's too large. Would replace/join my Canon 35/2 which is tiny.
Hilmersen
Established
Hilmersen
Established
It is about 1mm longer than the 50 f2. It feels more solid - probably because it does not have a sun-shade...
zleica
Established
The one in the link is not M Hexanon 35. It's the Hexanon UC 35 in Leica LTM mount. The two lenses have different design: Hexanon UC was derived from Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM design, but also very similar if not identical to the Summicron-M 35 IV. M Hexanon 35 is a bit large in size, very similar to the size of Summicron-M 28mm without the lens hood mounted. It's an excellent performer, all of the Konica M/LTM lenses are excellent.
das
Well-known
Just wanted to note for the record here that the UC is not really that close of a lens design to the 4th Summicron. They have the same number of groups and elements, but the Nikkor/UC use a cemented rear group (while the Leica uses a cemented fourth group and its single smaller element/third group is positioned almost on top of the fourth lens group). The UC and Leica's sizes and barrels are similar, and they may ultimately perform similarly -- but not really the same design.
Archlich
Well-known
The UC-Hexanon is a Xenotar. And it's not all that great when used standalone, since it's under-corrected on focus shift between f/2.8-f/5.6 to be compensated by the Hexar's in-body AF correction. Visible barrel distortion too. Kinda like a precursor to today's underdesigned mirrorless lenses. I say this as a UC-Hexanon owner that still have one, because the build is just lovely.
The M-Hexanon 35/2 on the other hand is derived from the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 v4, to which the M-Hexanon 28/2.8 was almost identical. The latter in turn was then modified a bit into the 35/2. It's a symmetrical retrofocal design. Nothing clinical but very flat, very well corrected despite it not featuring any exotic elements. It just goes, like some very tasty glacial water.
The M-Hexanon 35/2 on the other hand is derived from the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 v4, to which the M-Hexanon 28/2.8 was almost identical. The latter in turn was then modified a bit into the 35/2. It's a symmetrical retrofocal design. Nothing clinical but very flat, very well corrected despite it not featuring any exotic elements. It just goes, like some very tasty glacial water.
cfritze
Established
I just re-acquired one because there’s a look I get with this lens that I don’t find elsewhere. A glassiness to surfaces and delicacy with light. Maybe it’s in my head, but now that I have one again, I’ll be shooting with it and trying not to spend too much time pixel-peeping in comparison to other lenses.
das
Well-known
Yeah, the UC was a commission job by a camera store in Japan and not a product that Konica sought on its own initiative to produce. Btw, the Nikkor also has a similar amount of shift as the UC, but the Nikkor controls distortion much better, which is something I can't wrap my head around. I can live with the barrel distortion (easy to correct), but the focus shift is pretty significant.