Konica LTM Hexanon 35 uc and 35 cron IV

Konica M39 lenses
tbarker13

tbarker13

shooter of stuff
Local time
1:27 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
1,677
Thought I would post a couple comparison shots between my new hex 35 UC and my 35 Cron IV. Tried to shoot something that would offer a look at the bokeh.

Shots were taken with my M8, ISO 640, at F/2. Shot as DNGs and processed in C1 as Tri-X. No sharpening or anything fancy. Just set the black point.
I don't carry a tripod, so these are not framed exactly the same.


cron 02.jpg
35 Cron IV


hex 02.jpg
35 Hexanon UC
 
Last edited:
I have to say I like the OOF areas of the Hexanon better ... I don't know if both shots are same shutter speed but the Hexanon appears to have controlled the highlights a little better for my tastes.

But I'm biased because I have a 35mm Hexanon and not a Summicron! :p
 
I don't have a 35 Hex, yet in these photos I do prefer it to Summicron. Very subtle differences but I agree with Keith's comments (who ,I think, should sell all cameras he owns and just keep Yashica Electro GT/GSN? ;) - saw some photos in a different thread and they are awsome from that little cam ! )
 
The sample images demonstrate two typical characteristics of the UC Hexanon. Better flare suppression in the first group evident in the cleaner OOF bright spots due to the multicoating and better bokeh (less harsh OOF rendering in the black/white and white/black lettering) despite the Summicron label as the "king of bokeh".
 
Last edited:
The differences are so subtle it's ridiculous. I agree about the hex being slightly easier on the eye though in the bokeh. Both brilliant lenses.
 
The cron photos appear more 3d to my eyes.

Would you have any colour examples? I'll bet they render colour very differently...
 
I can process those in color as well. I'm doing a little documentary project on the restoration of an old WWII bomber (a B-25) and the lighting in the hangar is kind of odd, with a variety of different type of bulbs.
I'll try to look at them again tonite.


So far I really like the Hexanon. I would imagine that I will end up selling the cron. They both work very well, but the hexanon is just built better.
 
I agree with Gavin here - both great lenses with not much to tell between them (on the monitor at least). To my eye it looks like the falloff into OOF is steeper with the Hexanon, and that OOF is a little cripser with the Summicron.

I would be very happy with either lens - it happens I am, with the Hexanon. It spends a lot of time on the R-D1.

- John
 
All things being equal optically, the Hexanon has better build quality based on my impression of fit and finish but the Summicron focuses closer (0.9m vs. <0.7m).
 
And...

On a purely practical level, you are getting a new or nearly new lens for half the price. AND it fits on LTM bodies. It was a no brainer for me.
 
And...

On a purely practical level, you are getting a new or nearly new lens for half the price. AND it fits on LTM bodies. It was a no brainer for me.
Click to expand...


Exactly my train of thought. I'm getting a Canon P for my film needs. And this lens will be able to go back and forth between the Canon and my M8. It's almost too good to be true.
 
I have the 35mm UC Hexanon. I love the Hexanon - small, easy to handle, and great images.

However, it does have some barrel distortion (compared with the lack of distortion on my 35 summicron ASPH) and many times I feel that I'm pushing the limits of its close-up ability at the 0.9 m minimum focus. I often wish I could get a little closer focus - perhaps closer to the 0.7m minimum focus (as best I remember without getting the lens out) of my Summicron ASPH.
 
Minimum focus distance is .9 on the UC, versus .7 on the cron.
For me, that's not a huge issue. I've got other lenses I'll use if I really need to get closer to something.
 
tbarker13 said:
Minimum focus distance is .9 on the UC, versus .7 on the cron.
For me, that's not a huge issue. I've got other lenses I'll use if I really need to get closer to something.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Tim.
 
At one time I had both these lenses, over the years a few examples of the 35 Summicron 4th version. My experience is that that the built quality is excellent with both. The black paint finish of the Hexanon is beautifully done a very solid lens, and my chrome [brass mount] Summicron is different of course but also solid and with a nice finish. Optically they are so close its splitting hairs. The Hexanon is a bit better with flare suppression, but has some barrel distortion when used in the closer range and although the .9 meter focus limit doesn't seem like much on paper sometimes that little bit matters (especially if you are just carrying one camera with one lens). The Summicron a bit sharper in close, The Hexanon has a bit higher contrast, the Summicron a bit more detail in tonality.

If I still had my LTM cameras I would have kept the Hexanon, but for me the Summicron just was the better choice, also partly because of the 39mm filter size and use of the hood/polerizing filter. I can't imagine someone being unhappy with either lens. The only other important factor being cost, and since I got my Summicron for about $800 (unless I thought of selling it for the now going prices to get [another] Hexanon replacement) it was more a personal decision.
 
Last edited:
With either lens, using the old method of stopping down a couple stops for best results, they really are outstanding at f4-f5.6. And thinking of the 'boke factor', in this range and with subjects in the 2-3 meter focus range the transition of out of focus area seems very 'natural' to me, not the abrupt fall off of the newer ASPH Summicron, which is why I still like the 'older' design lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top