Any one using the Konica Hexanon 35/2 M mount lens on their Leica? I called konica to see what they had to say about focussing issues. I spoke to a so called "tech" who told me some people have problems and some do not. He pretty much knew next to nothing. He kind of had the flange distance and the rangefinder misalignment issues with the konica mixed up. I want to know what focussing problems, if any, users have with these lenses on thier Leicas.

-- Chris Lutz (mesheca@yahoo.com), January 29, 2002

Answers

I have the Japanese camera Magazine (CAPA) that reviewed the Konica Hexar upon its initial introduction and it did a pretty thorough job of showing off the optics that were first introduced with the camera (Konica 28mm, 50mm and 90mm). Additionally there was a very nice shot of a model at near sunset that was made with the Konica RF and a Leica 50mm Summilux at f/1.4. This photo was perfectly focused on the forward eye and was almost enough to make me buy a Summilux, not to mention the Konica so I could use the 1/4000th to allow me to shoot at full aperture.

When the 35mm f/2.0 Konica lens was introduced, the same magazine reviewed this lens, but with a twist... every shot was made with a Leica M6. The photos looked fine (attractive models by window light), but no shots in the article were made at anything wider than f/4.0. In the first article about the first three lenses, Konica made sure to feature a full aperture shot from all of the lenses, so I was wondering why a semi-fast lens like a 35mm f/2.0 was not used at that aperture for at least one shot. Was it lens performance? Was it camera compatibility factors? Who knows?

Due to all of the conflicting statements, I am still using my 35mm non-ASPH Summicron on an M6... no problem! Go to this link from the archives for more "opinions" on this subject. click

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 29, 2002.

The "www" is missing in the above link. If that one doesn't work try this one.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 30, 2002.

At the moment I have only one working Leica camera, an M4-P. All my Leica lenses 28/2.8; 50/2; 90/2.8; 135/4 focus correctly with this camera. The Hexar RF that I purchased second-hand had the usual problem that when the lens was set to infinity with either Leitz or Hexanon lenses, the rangefinder patch overlapped on the left side. After much testing and several adjustments to the rangefinder of Hexar RF here are my present conclusions ( I am allowed to change them in the future):

- I can adjust my Hexanon 50/2 to focus perfectly on the Hexar RF at both near and far distances. At this setting, all my Leica lenses focus perfectly on the RF at near distances, but are too soft at 50m(150ft) and over.

- If I adjust the Hexar RF to focus at infinity perfectly with my Leitz lenses than they are soft at near distances. Hexanon is not usable.

- It is possible to adjust the Hexar rangefinder so that 28,50,90mm Leitz lenses are usable (but not perfect) at both near and far distances. Leitz 135mm and Hexanon are not usable.

Method if you are interested: I check and recalibrate for focus whenever I purchase a camera or lens. This includes brand new equipment as well as second hand ones. I first check for infinity, while aiming at a TV tower about 5km (3miles) away and if needed make corrections (only to cameras - I do not have the knowledge, skills or equipment to play with lenses). Then I do checks at 50m(150ft), 1.5m(4.5ft), and 0.8m(2.5ft) first by ground glass and magnifier at film plane, and then by shooting actual film. A small (2mmx2mm) centre portion of the film is scanned at 2700dpi (focussed manually and unsharp mask used until film grain is sharp - 2x 100) and enlarged about x40 on the screen. For the 50m test I shoot the house opposite the street, which has very fine lead light windows. For the 1.5m and 0.8m tests I use a row of collectable tea and coffee tins which have been on the same shelf in our kitchen for about 10 years. All shots are done with camera on tripod. I have a library of scans now for all my past and present camera and lenses (20mm to 200mm), so I can compare and decide whether a particular camera/lens combination is producing optimum results. I hope above is understandable and helpful !

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), January 30, 2002.

With all the reports of incompatibility problems, it seems to me like it's not even worth it to try to mix these brands. The "ho-hum-ness" of Konica about the issue raises even more red flags about using their stuff specifically. Off the top of my head, the Konica "KM" 35/2 Hex retails for about $700 at B&H (I haven't seen any on the used market up to this point, so I assume that's what you'll have to pay if you want one). That's about the price of an exc+/mint- Leica pre-ASPH 35/2-'cron. Given that comparison, it's a no-brainer IMO. Get the real thing.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), January 30, 2002.

Thanks for Sait's answer, it really proves what many people have found out: Not all Hexar RF's focus correctly with either Leica or Konica lenses. On the other hand all Konica lenses seem to work correcly on the Leica ? A proven answer still stands out here, until now I haven't seen any tests regarding this issue. My personal experience is that at least the 50/2 seems to be compatible as far as you can tell when handholding. No unsharp negatives / slides under a loupe until now, just a happy user with a new 250$ lens ;-)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), January 30, 2002.

May be I should re state that the the only Konica lens I have focuses perfectly on my Konica body and Leica lenses focus well on my Leica camera (allowing for the LEICA TOLERANCE for lens cams), but not vice versa, maybe their focusing arm (the arm that pivots in the camera lens opening) lenghts are different.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), January 30, 2002.

This seems, in a way, a continuation of the discussion on M mount ompatibility I started last week in which I quoted Erwin Puts's discussion of the Hexar 35/2. As an endnote to that thread I wrote my reservations about how Mr. Puts reached his conclusions. Here is what I wrote in part:

[Erwin Puts writes: "The truth is this: I did a test on the bench and focused carefully on maximum image quality. Then I used a micrometer to defocus by 0.03mm (which is quite small). In the image the loss of contrast was very evident, but resolution at least at the lower frequencies (around 40 lp/mm) did not suffer. What did suffer was the edge sharpness. " My question: What camera did he use? I deduce that if he had to "defocus by 0.03mm" he was using a Hexar RF. What hits me (duh!) is that if his purpose was to warn us not to use Hexar lens on our Leicas, etc. he should have used the 35/ 2 Hexar on a Leica and focused to the correct Leica focus and then compared his results with those of the same lens focused correctly on the Hexar RF. Then he should have taken the 35/2 Hexar and tried it on a Voigtlander Bessa T.

This seems so obvious to me that I wonder...if I am not missing something.]

In that thread a lot of people wrote declaring vigorously that their odd lenses on Leicas, Bessa T's and so on worked fine. Which is a great relief for me. I've yet to use a Hexar lens on my Hexar RF and so far everything's dandy. But you start reading stuff and you begin to doubt your own eyes.

Erwin Puts does write that overall the Hexar 35/2 is better than Leica's 35/2 Asph. I believe this is a minority view. Chasseur d' Images #240 published earlier reports on the Hexar and Leica lenses together. They rate the Hexar 35/2 highly. Fours starts for "Note technique" and "Cote d'amour" -- but they rate the Leica Summicron 35/ 2 Asph higher : five stars on both counts. (Interestingly, they rate the Hexar 28/2.8 higher than the new Elmarit 28/2.8.) See pages 176 and 177.

Some practical points. The Hexar is about half the price of the Leica. At 265 g. it is 10 g. heavier than the Leica. It sticks out more than the Leica.

I wish someone would give us a definative answser to Chris's question. The Hexar 28/2.8 is really a gem--and it has a hood that isn't as obstructive as Leica's. The Hexar 35/2 is also lovely lens which would probably satisfy anyone who does not mind using a non-Leica 35mm lens on a Leica.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 31, 2002.

Alex,

> Erwin Puts does write that overall the Hexar 35/2 is better than > Leica's 35/2 Asph.

I thought he said 35/2 PRE-ASPH.! Anyway, I'm going to buy the lens soon for use on my Hexar (don't have a Leica).

Joop

-- Joop Mes (Joopmes@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

Konica "KM" 35/2 Hex retails for about $700 at B&H (I haven't seen any on the used market up to this point, so I assume that's what you'll have to pay if you want one).

$522 at Robert White. Leica lenses are cheaper than the US also, although not any better than grey market prices at Tamarkin.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 31, 2002.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry! Just rechecked Erwin Puts's test of the Hexar 35/2 and he does say, as Joop tells us, that it outperforms the NON-ASPHERICAL Leica 35/2's. The Leica 35/2 ASPH beats it wide open.

Gosh am I every sorry. Thirty lashes with a Leica strap for me!

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 31, 2002.

Make that a Hexar AF strap.

Now to serious things. Does anyone have anything to say about how Erwin Puts determined that a Hexar 35/2 cannot go on a Leica?

In other threads poor Erwin Puts was quite dumped upon but no one (as I recall anyway) really deconstructed his methodology.

I think I may be missing something in questioning methods. I'm not a lens tester and wouldn't know how to do a proper bench test. Would someone with expertise in this area please enlighten us.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 31, 2002.

$522 at Robert White. Leica lenses are cheaper than the US also, although not any better than grey market prices at Tamarkin.

What about warranty status? With the seemingly nonexistent quality control with the Konica RF focusing issues, I'd sure want to make any possible return or warranty work easy on myself.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.

I asked Konica USA directly about the Hexar RF-Leicalens compatability and they repeated the warning everyone is complaining about. However, the technician said that he could adjust the RF camera so that it would work perfectly with Leica lenses, but then it would not work perfectly with their own lenses. For a lot of Konica owners, this would be a good solution. The compromise is to use, say, the Leica 50mm 2.0 lens as is, and then purchase the Hexar 28mm 2.8 lens and just live with the slight discrepancy. Has anyone out there had their Konica Hexar RF adjusted by Konica?

-- Don Lawrence Kincaid (dlkincaid@home.com), April 05, 2002.

The focusing by using a what-you-see-is-not-what-you-get viewfinder camera, Leica M or Hexar RF, is all about "best-estimation". Can you consistently focus or refocus same object(near or far, center or off- center, small or big) at the same mark on the lens using the same brand cameras/lenses on a tripod? My point is that the rangefinder camera is not good for critical focusing needs and don't be too serious about the focusing accuracy and so-called testing results.

-- kenny chiu (gokudo31@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.