I saw Alex Shishin make reference to having seen the Hexar 35/2 lens. I am hoping that he will give us any info he has. Has anyone else seen it? Maybe it's a Japan only lens. Are there pictures on the web anywhere? Anyone own it yet?

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 23, 2001

Answers

I use to live in Japan, and still have friends there who send me Japanese camera magazines. In the April 2001 issue of "CAPA", there was a review of the Konica 35mm f/2.0 with many photos.

There were several things that made me wonder about its quality. First in another issue of this same magazine that reviewed the original offerings from Konica for the RF, the 28mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses, there were several examples of these lenses used at their maximum apertures. These lenses looked very good at the widest stops, and in theory, this should have been the weakest aperture, so it was a good move... showing very good results at the worst case setting. With the new 35mm lens, no images were presented at an aperture wider than f/4.0. One would expect that an f/2.0 lens closed two or three stops would be at the optimum aperture, but rangefinder users are often at the limits as far as light, so how does this lens perform at the maximum aperture? Why wasn't the same criteria used for this lens as the previous offerings from Konica? If this lens was good at full aperture, then I would think that it would have been shown to in the report, as was the first generation of glass from Konica. Anyhow, the images shown are not bad, but again at those apertures, a Summicron is bitingly sharp.

One point of interest, especially considering many of the long threads on the LUG about the cross-compatibility of Konica / Leica lenses and cameras... all of the photos in the article were made with the Konica lens on a Leica M6.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 23, 2001.

This is interesting. I seem to remember the 35 being the weakest performer in the Contax G lineup also. I guess the Summicron is an intimidating act to follow.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 23, 2001.

Erwin Puts has done some testing of this lens, and his comments, taken from a newsletter he distributes, follow:

The new Konica M-Hexanon 35mm lens, that I have been testing (see my site for more info), has not only be used on the bench (as some of you still seem to believe). I am also doing extensive tests with film and normal photographic subjects. For this comparison I used Kodak 100SW. I also made colour prints with a high quality 160ISO lower contrast film with good colour fidelity. But as noted often colour neg film is for 90% at the mercy of tyhe print shop and they do not do a good job. So comparisons on the basis of colour prints are not well founded or even of dubious nature. The slide film test gave these additional results. At full aperture the lens is prone to flare and has also a quite high amount of spherical aberration, which shows itself in the softness of the finer details and the overall haze of lightness that transcends the whole image area. It lacks the punch of the Summicron asph. There is also a tendency to generate secondary images and reflections with strong (oblique) light sources (like the sun in a corner of the lens). When stopped down to 2.8 or 4, the image crispens visually and here we have first rank quality. The bokeh is a fine mix of smooth gradient from sharp to unsharp, but with some of the brittleness in the distant out of focus areas where the outlines are doubled and the right spots are rough. Despite the comments on the performance wide open this is a high quality optic in the front rank of current designs. Mechanically the Konica is a class better than the Voigtlander lenses: there is only very slight decentring, the mount is very smooth and sturdy without any play. The Voigtlander lenses I had at least showed pronounced decentring and sloppy mounts. Optically the Konica 35 is not as good as the Summicron wide open and it does indicate the leica philosophy that building lens with excellent properties wide open is an art and an expensive one. You know what you pay for in a Leica lens: excellent performance wide open, and generally transparency and clarity in the fine details, and that luminosity and crispness of detail in the shadow parts and high lights that are true hallmarks of a well designed lens.

-- Shel Belinkoff (belinkoff@earthlink.net), July 23, 2001.

Here is Erwin's full review:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/hexarrf.html

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 23, 2001.

In all honesty, I think Erwin Puts is a prototype knucklehead "Leicaphile". I dislike reading his reviews because they are all the same. Nothing will ever be as good as Leica and Leica is GOD. On occasion there may be a slight change in this stance, but not very often.

If I want opioions like that, I'll just read Leica brochures.

But it is good to know that this lens does in fact exist.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 23, 2001.

Josh is right. Just read that last sentence. I thought it was a review of the Konica lens?

-- Andrew (opiet@useast.com), July 23, 2001.

Don't sugar-coat it, Josh. Come out and tel us how you really feel ;- )

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 23, 2001.

I have the Hexar 35/2 lens and I like it very much. First it is cheap. I got mine for only $565. About half of what the ASPH Summicron goes for.

I use it for low light with TMax 400 and wide open seems fine to me.

The build quality is amazing. Better than Leica in my opinion...

-- Mike Foster (mike567@acgecorp.com), July 24, 2001.

Mike, where did you get the lens? At that price, it's a steal if it can be compared to the pre asph 'cron. How big is it (compared to the cron)? I don't suppose you have any JPEG's?

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 24, 2001.

Hi

I too am considering the Hexar 35mm, I have the 50mm which is fantastic, though I did go for the Leica 90mm.)

I have seen the 35mm in London, build quality is excellent but it is quite big and I would prefer a simpler hood design.

I am waiting for some more reviews before jumping (some rather more objective ones than on the Erwin Puts site - does the 0.09mm difference he refers to really matter for real photography no one else has ever mentioned this?)

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), July 24, 2001.

Well Erwin is perhaps a knucklehead, but he might also be right! What is really needed is a totally impartial observer - detailed MTFs would help - but I for one could not be bothered to look at them. Basically he thinks it is a really good lens! He just says the Leica lens is better wide open - this is not unreasonable given the huge price difference between the lenses. Whether anyone else notices the difference is debatable, but poor old Erwin clearly can see something - he is cursed with only be able to use the very finest and most expensive lenses - that is perhaps his problem (actually as Leicaphiles it is usually our problem too).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), July 24, 2001.

Robert White has the Hexar 35/2 for $525.

Robert White

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), July 24, 2001.

Josh,

I got mine from E-Bay. It is a small lens but not as small as the Leica. It is lighter though, I think.

The hood is big. But I like it that way. It does not add to the weight and it protects the lens surface.

Marc, you say "Robert White has the Hexar 35/2 for $525". That is SO, SO misleading. For starters they do not take payments in US DOLLARS! They are in the UK. They take "pounds" and they ask 370 of them.

Now, all you did was multiply that by the rate you got which I assume is 1.4189. That rate is the Interbank rate for transactions of ONE MILLION DOLLARS. How will you pay? Let's assume credit card. Even the best credit card bank will give you a rate at least 2% less than the Interbank rate. So you would get a rate of 1.4473 that makes is $535.50. Then most credit card companies also charge a 1.5% "foreign transaction fee". So makes it $543.53. Then the shipping. A minium of $30, lets say. And then there is customs duty of 2.2%. So the total is $585.49.

So there.

-- Mike Foster (mike567@acgecorp.com), July 24, 2001.

Mike – the world does not revolve around your backside and, strange as it may seem to you, some Leica photographers do actually live here in the UK, and paying in British Pounds is no problem whatsoever! Frankly, I was very pleased with the information Josh supplied – which was much more interesting than the garbage you came up with - because the only other UK price I found for this lens until now was a much higher quote! So there!!

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@btinternet.com), July 24, 2001.

Chris, you are saying absolute "rubbish". Mark quoted the price in US Dollars. So that information was NOT for you Brits. That information was for people in the US, otherwise he would have said 370 "pounds". Or do you use US Dollars in the UK now? Hell, you don't even like the Euro!

Moreover your head does not work properly, since it was NOT Josh that provided that information, but Marc. See, you don't even know what you are talking about!

The information I provied was EXTREMELY useful for us folks here in the USA. So there.

Go have a nice "cuppa" tea...

-- Mike Foster (mike567@acgecorp.com), July 24, 2001.

Mike - OK! OK! Truce - and my apologies for my un-gentlemanly conduct - I got a little carried away but let's not use this forum as an excuse for fighting the Battle of Independence all over again! Maybe I'm a little envious of you guys over there because your camera prices are so damn low - it sometimes gets to me!

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@btinternet.com), July 24, 2001.

Chris. Truce it is! I am sorry too. I was just trying to make a point to us US folks here that you need to add a lot of charges, that's all.

Actually our prices here are NOT that low! Like you said, even with the extras, UK has better prices on Konica, Voigtlander and even some of the Leicas. And on Mamiya stuff US prices are about TWICE than that of the UK. Nikon and Canon maybe a little cheap here but only a little. So don't feel so bad.

If you really want to feel bad, then let's talk "Petrol" prices... I just filled up my tank and the price I paid was $1.14 per gallon or about 20 pence per litre!!!

Take care now.

-- Mike Foster (mike567@acgecorp.com), July 24, 2001.

Did I hear my name called? Well, like the Genie that pops out of the lamp, here I am.

Josh--

Two things are as important to me as optical performance. One is how the lens handles: how it feels in the hand, how it sits on the camera, how its operation holds up in the field. The other is durability. I think the Konica 35/f2 is well made. It is light. Its dept of field scale (very important to me) is very good. It has a focusing tab, like Leica's 35's. (Important to me as I am a Rapidwinder fanatic.) My fingers were happy turning the apature ring. No problem with the lens shade being in my way. The shade itself is a gem. Look through the viewfinder and it is so thin it almost disappears. Strictly from outside appearances, it is obvious to me that a lot of attention to detail went into the designing of this lens. The lens practically screams, "I wanna be a Summicron!" Konica apparently used an old Summicron formula for the Hexar AF (and the 35/ f2 the sold as a limited edition in screw mount). The optical formula for this M mount Hexar 35/f2 is new.

How good is this new optical formula?

Here is my very limited and subject evaluation based on a few frames shot in a photo shop at f2. Take it with a grain of salt. Erwin Putts has no rival in me.

When I saw the shots the Voigtlander 28/f1.9 made wide open in a photo shop I went "OOOOOOH! AHHHHH! I want it!" When I saw similar wide open shots I'd made with the Konica 35/f2 I said, "Hmmm. Not bad. Okay."

What we like in a lens is subjective, face it. The genius of a lens goes beyond simple figures and charts. As one of our posters so well put it a few days ago elsewhere the optical formula has to create an overall pleasing image and it does so with balances of design. All of my Leica lens, no matter how old, have that OOOOH, AHHHH factor. A certain snap. A certain presence. All of this is, of course, a matter of calculation and testing, though for us it might come out as elusive or mystical. For me the Voigtland 28/f1/9 has it. The Konica 35/f2 had less of it--at least in these few initial informal test shots, which--I have got to emphasize--prove very little, if anything at all.

I know this is not only unscientific but also unfair. I have a Hexar AF and the images it produced are great. (That camera let me shoot fairly immobile people wide open at chest level quietly--that was more important than anything else.) I am certain that if I went out and bought the Konica 35/f2 and used it in the field I'd probably be very happy with it simply because of its ease of operation. (I cannot stress enough how important that is.) A great thing about Konica's 35/f2 and 28/f2.8 is that their hoods don't hog a quarter of the viewfinder.

What I'll do is pop down to a camera shop where I've tithed a goodly portion of my income and fool with that lens extensively. I'm also interested in how it handles flare--a major problem in my beloved Summilux 35/f1.4.

There is one other thing to consider. The vanity factor. Psychologically it may be the hardest to substitute another 35/f2 for a Leica 35/f2, given the quality of Leica's 35/f2 Summicrons and their reputation as ipso facto standard lenses. A 28, a 90, even a 50 is one thing. A 35/f2 is another. How important is that to you? If it is important best to admit it before you buy. This sort of thing does affect how you shoot.

Price is a factor you need to consider. A matter of saving a few hundred dollars shouldn't be an issue. Economize elsewhere; don't drink wine for a month. If it is huge sum, then it is a an important factor. Like it or not, we are less enthusiastic about taking super- expensive equipment out into the field where it can be stolen or damaged (one reason I avoid commemorative Leicas and such). Also why pay more when you can get virtually the same for less--the Voigtland 28/f1.9 being a case in point. Tom Abrahamsson wrote that choosing to buy the 28/f1.9 over the $2000 Leica was a "no brainer." (He also said--it was in an article or to me or both--that the Voigtlander handled better.)

There really is no major difference between the price of a good used Summicron 35/f2 and the Konica Hexar 35/f2.

If I happen to buy the Konica 35/2 it will be for fairly mundane reasons. I like the way it operates. I know I'll be able to buy a fairly cheap replacement for the shade if I break it.

I'm also fascinated with Konica's new optical formula for this lens. But that is the tinkerer in me.

While at it, should mention that the frame preview level came off my Hexar RF thanks to a loose screw. Saved the level but not the screw. My Hexy has performed flawlessly over the 1 and 1/2 yrs that I've had it. But these little mechanical problems--like the top place on the hotshot that kept falling out until I epoxyed the beggar in--annoy me.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), July 24, 2001.

Thanks Alex!

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 25, 2001.

Wow, Alex. What more can be said? Great contribution - passionate AND thoughtful.

Well, for the record and for those of you reading French, there is a review of the Hexanon 35/2 in the July issue of "Réponses Photo" which IMHO is the most informative photographic magazine I have come across so far.

http://www.tipa.com/ reponsesphfr.html

In short, the reviewer (Claude Tauleigne) praises it for built and optical quality but blames it for lack of bite on the borders when full open, for bulk and for it's high price. At the same tag he would rather prefer a used pre-asph over a Hexanon - not for performance but for handling.

So, it seems there's nothing but a personal test ride to be taken...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), July 25, 2001.

Thanks for the good word, Josh.

Interesting about the French review. Seems to confirm my gut level instincts regarding that lens. I know I was unfair but in the hard headed photo world unfortunately "unfair" reactions to images is a part of life.

cheers,

alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), July 28, 2001.

And many thanks to the other contributor!!

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), July 28, 2001.

I do agree with comments about the "Erwin Puts, Leica Propoganda Ministry" and generally take his views with a grain of salt but he did make one concession to the Konica 35, he said it was superior to the pre-ASPH 35 Summicron. Considering this lens has a very good reputation and people on LUG dispute the virtues of the old Summicron 35 over the ASPH, even if the Konica is in the middle of these 2 lenses it must surely be a great lens of excellent value.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

That settles it. I'm going to shoot a roll or two with this lens. Check flare, check ease of operation, check the AHHH OOOH factor!

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), July 31, 2001.