View Full Version : Got glass, need body. Konica 35/2 UC-Hexanon
This was by far the most expensive photo equipment I bought in recent years. But 35mm is one of my favourite focal length and some of you said this is a dream lens (thanks for the GAS). Limited to 1000, I am quiet happy to finally got one of this jewels in my hands (No. 680/1000). Problem, I do not have a body yet, neither LTM or M-mount :-( . Which one would you get? Everthing from Bessa L to Leica MP counts? What makes a nice package here?
You could try to talk me out of one of my Canon VI-T bodies so I can partially repay myself for buying UC-Hexanon #636 a couple weeks ago. That lens has been quite popular in recent weeks. Yours is #3 this month at RFF.
Well, Noriaki seems to be a nice guy, so it is good to give him some business:) . I was just wondering, where he got all this lenses from. This must be a quiet rare item. The price seemed fair for that. I although do not believe these are copies, due to the built quality this lens have. I want to mount this lens to full sensor digital RF one day, but maybe this will not happen. So what body to get? The RD-1 is not interesting for me, neither the M8. That brings it down to film bodies...
venchka, the Canon VI-T is interesting, I did not even think of this one yet. Do you use the UC-Hexanon mainly on this body? Maybe I will come back to you, thanks. Any more recommendation ?
If it was me I would put it on an M2 ...
But since it's LTM there are at least 10+ possible good bodies out there that you can use.
Whether you use a Bessa R or an MP, the photos will be the same, so depends on your
budget ... The Canon offered to you above is a great body.
Roland.
Thanks, ferider. Can you give me some more details about the 10+ possibilities, please. Sure I was thinking about this myself, but I would be interested what you would do... M2 sounds nice. I am sure I would like it when I find a good example. Or even a M4P or M5 could be nice. But I am afraid with this "old" bodies that I will spend a lot off $$$ into CLAs and care. The Bessas and the Hexar RF although have a higher top shutter speed, which may be usefull when you shoot wide open.....
What body would YOU think, makes a nice package with this lens ?
Thanks, ferider. Can you give me some more details about the 10+ possibilities, please. Sure I was thinking about this myself, but I would be interested what you would do... M2 sounds nice. I am sure I would like it when I find a good example. Or even a M4P or M5 could be nice. But I am afraid with this "old" bodies that I will spend a lot off $$$ into CLAs and care. The Bessas and the Hexar RF although have a higher top shutter speed, which may be usefull when you shoot wide open.....
You can get a decent M2 with a CLA from Youxin Ye for less than US 600. And be sure that
the camera will work for a long time ...
I have never held the UC Hexanon, but from what I read it's very similar in size to the 35/2
Summicron or Canon 35/2. The Summicron is very well balanced on all M bodies.
Even though I own only few Leitz lenses I am biased towards their bodies (anything with 35mm frameline will
work for you). Other than the possible 6+ Leica bodies (M2, M4, M5,
M6, M7, MP), if you have no budget constraints, I would pick from
ZI, Hexar RF, Bessa R2* [3 possibilities], Canon (several ones), etc.
This lens will work even well on a Leica IIIf with finder ...
Cheers,
Roland.
laptoprob
06-25-2007, 15:18
Or a Canon VT like mine. Still not sure if I really want to sell it. Maybe the black Bessa T should go. Too many cameras is a waste in my opinion. But the Bessa T is not ideal because of the separate VF.
Otherwise I can reccommend an M2 or later M. I am quite happy with my M4-2.
Thanks. A Bessa R would be ideal, because of the LTM but I may not like the built quality. Big on my list is also a Bessa R2, R2m or even better the R2a, because I like AE. But never handled theBessas as well. So I may be disapointed. ( In fact I hoped that you tell me to get one of the Bessas and go shooting.) As said before the pictures will look the same, but maybe a Leica or a nice Canon will give me much more fun and pleasure...
For the thread mount adapter. Will a $10 Chinese adapter do the same as the (expensive) CV or Leitz adapter? Any risks to ruin the mount on the body or the thread on the lens? Or problems with focus? Well, I just have this feeling that the CV adapter is nothing else, than the no name one from China. Any experience somebody? For a filter. Since this is an expensive lens, I think I should use a UV filter for protection. I never use filter on my fixed RF. What to watch out for when I want to get a "good filter" ? It may not make sense to put a cheap filter on a expensive lens, right?
...For the thread mount adapter. Will a $10 Chinese adapter do the same as the (expensive) CV or Leitz adapter?
A thousand times NO! Leitz or CV only.
Filters: 43mm B+W MRC only.
laptoprob
06-25-2007, 15:38
An adapter should be a precise piece of machinery. Not just the mount and the threads, but also the exact thickness. A little off and you have no rf accuracy left.
Thanks guys... great advise !!
As I said, I've only had my lens for a little over two weeks. It works fine on the LTM Canon body and equally well (with adapter) on an M5. I also have the original, all chrome, 34mm filter size Canon 35/2.8. That lens is very small. One of the smallest lenses I've ever seen in LTM. It is 24mm long. The Konica lens is about 4mm longer and 8-10mm larger diameter than the Canon lens.
KoNickon
06-25-2007, 15:44
Does anyone actually have experience with the Chinese-made LTM adaptors not being up to the standard of the Leitz or CV? (I've never seen one of these, but I find it hard to believe it's not made to the same tolerances.)
Interesting question KoNickon. Does anybody have an answer here, before going back to the topic. Please do not forget, I still need a body...:)
Does anyone actually have experience with the Chinese-made LTM adaptors not being up to the standard of the Leitz or CV? (I've never seen one of these, but I find it hard to believe it's not made to the same tolerances.)
Search here at RFF. There are people who have had problems with the lower quality adapters.
EDIT: Maybe I was lucky. I bought two Leitz adapters on ebay for a total of $80. I got a 3rd adapter with my UC-Hexanon lens. I don't think I payed all that much for piece of mind.
Yes venchka, you are right. You should not buy a Porsche and put no name tires on it - to say it in other words. I think I will get myself a CV adapter and a B+W filter for this baby. For the body... Well, if I look for a Lieca what would be the better VF? 0.58 or 0.72? I do not have glasses yet, so thats not an issue. I heard that the M2 is maybe the best Leica for 35mm. Also, I got offered a (rare) 0.58 black MP lately, which is in fact my dream camera. But it may be hard to pay for this one....
You missed a recent bargain user M5 in the classifieds here. There is another M5 currently for sale. There are two Canon bodies on the offering table. The one in the Netherlands might be easier to ship, customs, etc. You could patiently watch the classifieds here. There have been numerous, nice LTM & M mount bodies lately. Good luck! Welcome to the Fraternal Order of UC-Hexanon owners!
There is a good M6 currently.
Roland.
Thanks for the welcome venchka. I will pay my tribute soon and post some photos, hopefully. I will check the classifieds. A Canon could be sweet and fit into my little collection of classic fixed RF cameras. Or a Hexar RF, or a Bessa, or a Leica.... I am sure there is a camera waiting for me. Thanks for all your replies again and the good advise on thread mount adapters and filters for this lens.
You are very welcome. I think there is a Hexar RF in the classifieds too. If it hasn't sold.
Yes the Hexar RF from Israel. I saw better offers. But I like the Canon 7 - CLA'd by Sherry Krauter, but I am turned off by the wrinkled shutter curtain, even if this is a common problem with the Canon RF. I think the UC-Hexanon does not really fit to a Leica. For a Leica camera I would prefer a 35mm Leitz lens. CVs are Ok if you can not afford the Leitz, but the Konica Hexanon belongs to another camera. Than there is still the Bessas, which are kind of cheap and come with 3 year warranty if you buy them new here. I do not want to spent so much money on a film body anymore and also kind of like idea to have a "cheap" body, but very good lens. Well, I am not in a hurry. Got some nice fixed RF cameras at the moment, which are fun to shoot with. There was not even a need to buy this lens, but since I have not spent a lot of money on equipment, I thought this would be a nice purchase since it was available. Maybe I will never buy another 35mm lens, and hopefully do some nice pictures with this one...
dreamsandart
06-25-2007, 17:47
If price isn't a consideration I would definitely say a black paint Leica MP. One of the nicest physical things about the Hexanon-UC is its beautiful finish and its a good match to a Leica black paint camera. One of the M6 special edition BP would be a second choice. Any Leica with a 35mm frame would be fine M2/M4/M5, but a nice small M6/MP with built-in meter would be a great combination.
Yes the Hexar RF from Israel. I saw better offers. But I like the Canon 7 - CLA'd by Sherry Krauter, but I am turned off by the wrinkled shutter curtain, even if this is a common problem with the Canon RF. I think the UC-Hexanon does not really fit to a Leica. For a Leica camera I would prefer a 35mm Leitz lens. CVs are Ok if you can not afford the Leitz, but the Konica Hexanon belongs to another camera. Than there is still the Bessas, which are kind of cheap and come with 3 year warranty if you buy them new here. I do not want to spent so much money on a film body anymore and also kind of like idea to have a "cheap" body, but very good lens. Well, I am not in a hurry. Got some nice fixed RF cameras at the moment, which are fun to shoot with. There was not even a need to buy this lens, but since I have not spent a lot of money on equipment, I thought this would be a nice purchase since it was available. Maybe I will never buy another 35mm lens, and hopefully do some nice pictures with this one...
While many of us will not agree with you on your statement about CV lenses (and
if only for the fact that several CV lenses are unique in their specs, see my avatar), your statement perfectly
demonstrates how subjective choice of the body is. Lens performance can be measured
or looked at via photos, the body has to be comfortable for you only. There is really no bad
M mount camera and most LTM cameras are good as well. Once you get closer to
purchase, I recommend playing with some of the cameras and then decide ....
"Buy one of the Bessas and go out shooting" :)
Roland.
bunkawen14
06-25-2007, 18:30
Interesting question KoNickon. Does anybody have an answer here, before going back to the topic. Please do not forget, I still need a body...:)
I am batting .500.
I've had a Chinese adapter that didn't bring up the proper lines and never seemed to lock the lens securely in place, and a second adapter that works perfectly, and is indistinguishable in performance from the CV and Leica alternatives.
The difference is the first one was bought online, and no trial was possible. The second time around I was wiser and tested its fit before handing over the dough.
Many people won't have the stomach for this kind of uncertainty, but the Chinese gewgags are very cheap in price, and the branded ones, in my mind, unfairly priced.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 19:09
I bought ten Chinese adapters from "kawamall" on eBay and put one on all the L-mount lenses I use.
They are perfect. Perfect focus. I paid about $7 each.
It's not rocket science to make an accurate thickness with modern machining equipment, and they are probably MORE consistent then the older Leica adapters.
It's a piece of metal, for god's sake. I checked them with a digital micrometer against a Leitz adapter, and everything was OK.
If you prefer to be a superstious nut and pay $70 for the same piece of metal with "Leica" stamped on it, be my guest.
PS: ALL adapters occassionally don't seat right or "click" into place, even the Leica ones. A few seconds bending the prongs with a needle nose pliers solves all your angst.
Amen brother Edward. My freshly minted $12 Japanese 35/135 adapter seems perfect on a 135mm Jupiter 11.
I especially like the box description of the "Automatic Blight Frame Selection." Not only is the blight line :p selected correctly, but it focuses fine.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 19:26
Taken today with a crummy, miserable, cheap, inaccurate Chinese adapter. L-mount Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Epson R-D1 camera:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/606/chinese3jpgjh1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with R-D1 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=R-D1&make=SEIKO+EPSON+CORP) at 2007-06-25
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8232/chineseot4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with R-D1 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=R-D1&make=SEIKO+EPSON+CORP) at 2007-06-25
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3926/chinese2wh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with R-D1 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=R-D1&make=SEIKO+EPSON+CORP) at 2007-06-25
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4084/chinese4cp9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with R-D1 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=R-D1&make=SEIKO+EPSON+CORP) at 2007-06-25
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 19:45
Same crummy adapter used on a Leica M2 film camera with Nikkor 35mm f1.8, but because it had a Nikkor lens on it, the karmic mismatched lens mojo ruined all the photos. The Leica knew that it did not have a German lens on it and something went wrong on a molecular level.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5152/davidfoil88vu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8466/crop0086jk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
back alley
06-25-2007, 19:49
that woman seems to have unusually broad shoulders.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:03
Well, if you think she was a candidate for the Gay/Transvestite Parade, you probably would be wrong:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/5268/photo1zg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3125/photo2rx9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4536/isaold1kg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
back alley
06-25-2007, 20:09
must be the sweater
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:11
She doesn't have a schmeckle either, although nowadays I hear they cut them off and take hormone injections. One never knows, does one?
Edward Fletcher, when I see your pictures from the streets of NY, it really makes me want to go out there and take pictures myself. Nice stuff !!! I also like your Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Epson R-D1 combination a lot. May I ask you, if you shoot your street stuff in automatic mode or do you use sunny 16 or a handheld meter in combination with the RD-1. Do you also shoot from the hip from time to time. I am just interested in the way you shoot there.
back alley
06-25-2007, 20:17
a schmeckle or a shmata (sp?) no matter really.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:21
With the RD-1, I set the aperture for the lighting conditions or depth of field I want, then I let the camera pick the shutter speed on automatic.
I can focus pretty fast, but if I want to do a grab shot of a girl or something on the street, I set the ISO at 800, lens at f8 or f11 and prefocus around 7 feet away, then just shoot and let the depth of field keep everything in focus.
Thanks Edward. Yes I was interested if you use AE mode. For myself, I think the UC-Hexanon and a Bessa R2a could make a great combination. Maybe I find a way to test one....
Same crummy adapter used on a Leica M2 film camera with Nikkor 35mm f1.8, but because it had a Nikkor lens on it, the karmic mismatched lens mojo ruined all the photos. The Leica knew that it did not have a German lens on it and something went wrong on a molecular level.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8466/crop0086jk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-06-25
Pretty amazing for a 35mm lens and close focus of 3.5 feet. :cool:
Roland.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:45
I keep the camera in a plastic bag inside a "messenger" type shoulder bag. I take it out and hold it when I want to take pictures, then put it back.
I could take pictures which are just as good or better with a cheap digital camera, don't really need the R-D1 but I'm an equipment geek and I just like using the old lenses with it.
Honestly, no matter which camera/lens I used I would get good results and especially online, in jpg's, nobody could see the difference between the 1950's Nikkor or a Canon point and shoot $150 digicam. It would be faster to focus too, with AF.
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:46
There is such a thing as "scanning and cropping".
Pretty amazing for a 35mm lens and close focus of 3.5 feet. :cool:
Roland.
Edward, I am pretty sure your pictures would be all good, or to be fair lets say most of them. The reason is you have the eye, the feel and the experience to make a nice picture. All three can not be paid by Mastercard, right? No, it is really nice stuff you present here, I think. Got a website, flickr or something?
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 20:54
No, I don't.
I've had a lot of pictures published in the past but now I just take pictures for fun and no longer do magazine photography. I never bothered with a website.
I prefer to spend my free time making inane remarks on computer forums.
Oh yes. I know what your are talking about. Payments from the magazines are low anyway, these days...:). Would like to make a book one day, or what is the reason you have all this photos?
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 21:03
I have no reason for them except I like taking them.
LOL, same on my side. Just the fun. But from time to time I really like when the light was captured by a nice piece of glass and you can see it on the final print. That is maybe the best part in photography, for me. That is also the reason I bought this lens...(without even having a body :bang:):):):)
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 21:18
Get yourself an early Wetzlar M6.
I have an M3, and M7 and an M6, and the M6 is the one I pick up when I want to shoot film. (not often anymore).
The feel of the Wetzlar M6 is excellent, not expensive to maintain. There's nothing wrong with the Konica Hexar either.
Thanks. I will think about it and test some cameras if I can.
back alley
06-25-2007, 21:36
I prefer to spend my free time making inane remarks on computer forums.
you seem well practiced at it...
Edward Felcher
06-25-2007, 21:39
In the case of THIS forum, it's a turkey shoot.
back alley
06-25-2007, 21:42
In the case of THIS forum, it's a turkey shoot.
no self esteem problems with you.
alan davus
06-25-2007, 23:13
I'm a plumber Downunder and all the time get asked to install stuff made in China. It looks the same, works the same but most of the time it's junk. Quality control just does not exist. And when my clients try and get their money back, well pigs might fly. Allways remember with most things in life, you get what you pay for.
It's more like: "with most things in life you get less than what you paid for" ;)
alan davus
06-26-2007, 00:58
It's more like: "with most things in life you get less than what you paid for" ;)
Unfortunately, how true.
Edward Felcher
06-26-2007, 03:47
That's what they said about Japanese-made goods in he early postwar years.
Japanese cameras had to be "junk".
Have you looked at Chinese high-end audio stuff lately?
I'm a plumber Downunder and all the time get asked to install stuff made in China. It looks the same, works the same but most of the time it's junk. Quality control just does not exist. And when my clients try and get their money back, well pigs might fly. Allways remember with most things in life, you get what you pay for.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.