Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
If the UC is "better" with focus shift (as opposed to just shifting the focus to mask the problem as is done on ZM Sonnars), that necessarily means it has less SA (and probably worse bokeh). I haven't seen anyone make the claim that one is sharper than the other. The reality is that a lot of lenses will max out a 24mp sensor, so it may be hard to observe.
If the chrome is 46mm, that would be awesome, since I have pretty much every type of 46mm filter ever made, including redhancers, prisms and nebulas. But I guess I need to send that chrome 43mm B+W filter back to Adorama.
You can actually manipulate the focus on wideangle screwmount lenses by using different M adapters. I measured 30 of them from many sources, and there is a pretty big spread (0.94-1.02). When the silver one gets here (and assuming it arrives safely), I'll shoot them both against my LensAlign on a 240 and 246, and we can see if there is a focus shift difference.
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Archlich, try a thinner LTM adapter. That will fool the camera into thinking that the lens is focused further than it actually is, since the cam moves faster than the optical unit.
For sure the chrome 35 is also multi coated. I should have written "different multi coating and barrel". Since reading in the UC Hexanon literature somewhere that UC stood for Ultra Coating I've always assumed the difference between the chrome 35 and the UC multi coating was something like the difference between Nikon's "Nikon Integrated Coating" (NIC) and Nikon's "Super Integrated Coating" (SIC). NIC has the green sheen, and SIC, which replaced NIC in the early 2000s, has a purplish greenish multicolored sheen that changes by viewing angle.
But maybe there's no difference in the multi coating at all, and its just marketing!? Let us know what you find.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I just read this thread and couldn't follow the nomenclature -- "chrome" = the Hexar AF lens? "Black" = what exactly?
Is there no love for the M-Hex 35/2?
Is there no love for the M-Hex 35/2?
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Black is the 35/2 screwmount lens from 2000
Chrome is the 35/2 screwmount lens from 1996
(both are Hexar lenses from 1992 in Leica mount)
Ok. So the 35/2 chrome arrived today.
- Green coatings
- More of a Leica feel to the aperture (no friction like the UC; feels like a ball detent)
- Looks like a 10 or 11-blade aperture
- Half stops
- Filter ring is 46mm wide, but it looks like this is due simply to not tapering the lens past the focusing ring
- Chrome looks like Zeiss chrome. Scallops look like the Canon 35/2 or the Kobalux 21.
- With a Leitz LTM adapter, "up" is slightly to the side of vertical, like older lenses.
As to the focus shift on this one, inside 1.2m, it definitely needs to be hiked slightly past the RF focusing point, as in focusing further until the double image almost "breaks." Otherwise, f/2.8 is dead on. Past 1.2m, focus seems fine.
Bokeh is disc at distance.
The hood for this thing is beautiful (the hood is like the UC, but it has a rebate - a cylinder at its rim).
So I'm not seeing, right off the bat, much of note. I'll borrow my brother's lens and examine things in a little more detail.
Dante
Archlich
Well-known
Hi Dante, do you have recommendations? I have been using a Voigtlander one for years...
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Jiyeng, sold by Fotodiox and on Ebay, has a much better than average chance of being thin. Their adapters typically run from 0.95 to 0.99, at least on the 10 or so I measured. In general, off-brand adapters shoot to be a little thin so that lenses always focus to infinity. Leica ones seem to be 1.00 to 1.01. It helps to use a digital micrometer.
Dante
winzenbourg
Established
I have very little to add to this discussion from a technical perspective, but I've owned both lenses. From an ergonomic standpoint, the UC-Hexanon is my favorite lens ever. The focus throw and aperture clicks are perfect. Conversely, I found the L-Hexanon almost impossible to use. It was too cramped for me and I'd often accidentally move the aperture ring when moving the (rather stiff) focus ring.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Ok. Here you can see how this does at about a meter and f/2.0. Sharp as hell with commensurate massive falloff.
The arguments I've heard about the black one (which I have used extensively myself) are mainly related to ergonomics. If by that one means the ability to focus quickly and roughly correctly, I'd agree. But when you need to precisely focus, tabs are pretty bad. They are usually associated with very fast focusing rates, usually 1/4 turn, which themselves inhibit accuracy.
It's a matter of mechanics: a 35mm lens has very little focus travel. A big 50mm wide focusing ring gives you a 144mm circumference and a 36mm travel if it's a quarter turn from 0.9 to ∞. Every millimeter of ring travel is 1/40 of the front-back travel of the lens, and you are turning it with your index finger.
Now consider how that works when you are using your thumb (your least coordinated finger) to lever against a 12mm scallop, using less "draggy" lubricants. The big advantage of this system is tactile indication for approximate focus, but once you lift it to your eye to use the rangefinder, the tab doesn't confer any particular advantage. This is a great setup for a reportage lens, but the biomechanic limitations probably explain why tabs are almost completely absent from fast lenses, particularly longer ones. For example, ZM "hump" is for distance orientation and not leverage; every ZM lens is designed to be focused by using the ring.
These are, of course, horses for courses - and I own 35mm lenses with and without tabs. But I think the point is that if your budget is 1200 and not 2000, I would not automatically assume you're coming out worse with chrome.
Dante
The arguments I've heard about the black one (which I have used extensively myself) are mainly related to ergonomics. If by that one means the ability to focus quickly and roughly correctly, I'd agree. But when you need to precisely focus, tabs are pretty bad. They are usually associated with very fast focusing rates, usually 1/4 turn, which themselves inhibit accuracy.
It's a matter of mechanics: a 35mm lens has very little focus travel. A big 50mm wide focusing ring gives you a 144mm circumference and a 36mm travel if it's a quarter turn from 0.9 to ∞. Every millimeter of ring travel is 1/40 of the front-back travel of the lens, and you are turning it with your index finger.
Now consider how that works when you are using your thumb (your least coordinated finger) to lever against a 12mm scallop, using less "draggy" lubricants. The big advantage of this system is tactile indication for approximate focus, but once you lift it to your eye to use the rangefinder, the tab doesn't confer any particular advantage. This is a great setup for a reportage lens, but the biomechanic limitations probably explain why tabs are almost completely absent from fast lenses, particularly longer ones. For example, ZM "hump" is for distance orientation and not leverage; every ZM lens is designed to be focused by using the ring.
These are, of course, horses for courses - and I own 35mm lenses with and without tabs. But I think the point is that if your budget is 1200 and not 2000, I would not automatically assume you're coming out worse with chrome.
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Also field curvature, as you will see from the almost impossible DOF for f/2.
taomei
Established
Yes I suspected as such that the AF lens, taken out and directly placed into a helicoid, would have this issue, and likely also with the chrome version if it's the same. Thanks for your additional findings in this thread!
djnato10
M6 Classical
I have never used the two LTM Konica 35's, however I did have the M-Hexanon 35 f2 for a while. This is easily the lens I most regret selling. At one point I was shooting with nothing but 35mm lenses and I had the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH, Zeiss Biogon-C 35 f2.8, and the Konica M-Hexanon 35 f2 all at the same time. My Summicron was actually the first to go since Zeiss was just as sharp with more of the contrast that I was looking for. The Konica was the second to go which was a huge mistake. Looking back this is probably my favorite 35mm lens out there, even over my Biogon. On film it's just as sharp as both of the other two, it was the color rendition that did it though. There is something special about how the M-Hexanon rendered color film, specifically Ektar; and this is coming from someone who doesn't even like shooting color, 99% of everything I shoot is black and white. It's a heavy lens but the focus tab and smoothness of the focusing itself were absolutely amazing. If any of your find a good deal on this jump on it, I can promise you won't regret it.
Archlich
Well-known
I had the luck to own the M-Hexanon during the past years. It was truly magnificent... I believe the design was based on the M-Hexanon 28/2.8, which in itself is almost identical to the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 pre-ASPH (E46). It's a big, flat, symmetrical, non-aspherical, retrofocal lens that is very well corrected and performs flawlessly even on digital. I know of no other 35mm M lenses that share the same design. The closest would be the Nikkor 28/2.8 from the Nikon 28Ti, and the 55/4.5 Fujinon of the GF670W which share a similar design trait.
But mine did come with the focus a bit off. Could be the shim, could be sample variation. I was told by my technician Konica made it very easy to correct by including a set of shim rings beneath the mount. After the job it's perfect.