Does anyone out there have any experience with the Hexanon 35mm f2? How does it compare with the 35 mm f2.8?

I purchased a used 35 f2.8 a while back and was disappointed with sharpness of some of the shots - didn't think my sample was up to the usual Hexanon standards. Suspecting I'd purchased a lens that was a little beat up, I purchased a second 35mm f2.8 - and it was worse! I consulted a local photo store owner, who suggested that I put the camera on a tripod and take pictures of a brick wall at various aperatures from wide open to f16. Sure enough, the shots at f2.8 were pretty soft in the corners, but stopped down the lens (both of them) performed much better - pretty well, in fact.

I've never seen the f2.0 in stores or at auction. Any idea what it's worth?

-- Anonymous, November 08, 1999

Answers

Substitute for 35mm f/2

The 35mm f/2 isn't seen often. The 40mm f/1.8 'pancake' is pretty readily available, though, and you won't be disappointed with the sharpness. It's inexpensive, too.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 1999

Re: Hexanon 35mm f2.0

Gerald, I second Steve's suggestion on the 40mm f1.8. It'll give you a tad more speed, plus better correction. Also, it's SHARP! I have 2 of 'em, lucky me. It seems to be a very well-kept secret among the 35mm cognescenti for some unknown reason. As an aside, I use this lens for macro work with extension tubes. I really can't tell the results from my Vivatar 55mm f2.8 macro. The only caveat is it isn't flat-field. Jon

-- Anonymous, November 29, 1999