View Full Version : Hexanon 35 uc and 35 cron IV
tbarker13
12-03-2007, 22:01
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.
52686
35 Cron IV
52687
35 Hexanon UC
tbarker13
12-03-2007, 22:03
And one more set of shots. Same details as the first set.
52688
35 Cron IV
52689
35 Hexanon UC
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".
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...
tbarker13
12-04-2007, 08:17
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.
foto_fool
12-04-2007, 08:22
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.
tbarker13
12-04-2007, 11:04
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.
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.
So, clarify, please: what is the minimum focus on the UC 35/2 ? Thanks.
kipkeston
12-04-2007, 11:45
wow, hardly king of bokeh worthy just based on these.
tbarker13
12-04-2007, 12:55
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.
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.
Thanks, Tim.
dreamsandart
12-04-2007, 16:59
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.
dreamsandart
12-04-2007, 17:12
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.
mfunnell
12-04-2007, 17:20
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.Interesting. With the UC Hexanon I find the look subtly "odd" around the f4 mark so tend to use it either wide open (ish) or at f5.6+. Maybe that was just happenstance with some photos I took early on. I might try again and see if I still think the same way.
...Mike
tbarker13
12-04-2007, 18:57
I went ahead and processed two of the .dng files as color (generic M8). Nothing else done to the images, other than resizing to fit here.
52736
35 Cron IV
52735
35 Hexanon UC
BigSteveG
12-04-2007, 19:15
The Hex has more "snap"
wow, hardly king of bokeh worthy just based on these.
The King is dead ... long live the King! :)
thomasw_
12-04-2007, 20:22
That Hexanon renders well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast it with the real king of 35s, the ZM 35/2 ;)
mfunnell
12-04-2007, 20:33
That Hexanon renders well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast it with the real king of 35s, the ZM 35/2 ;)Konica bigot that I am, I'd note that the correct comparison there would be with the M-Hexanon 35/2 which renders quite differently from photos taken with the UC-Hexanon. That's a comparison I'd like to see as I'd originally intended to get the ZM 35, assuming that the M-Hex would be too hard to find. However, an RFF member "popped up" with one for sale so I snaffled it.
...Mike
Thank-you for providing the colour samples, tbarker13. The lenses both render very nicely. I think the hex has a little more modern look to it some how.
thomasw_
12-04-2007, 20:48
That's true Mike. I read somewhere that the M-hex 35 has better defined but dreamier OOF areas than the UC 35. I can't tell but perhaps that has to do with the UC's 'ultra coated' lenses? Some have written that the UC has less barrel distortion than the M version. It is interesting that konica designed the 2 35s so differently; the M after the summicron and the UC after the nikkor 35/1,8.
Here's a pic taken with the other Hexanon ... the KM 35 f2.
Also on an M8 at F2.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/wheelie52/RFF%20Storage/L1001027.jpg
That Hexanon renders well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast it with the real king of 35s, the ZM 35/2 ;)
They both cost about the same but are totally different approaches. I have no doubt the ZM 35/2 will be sharper wide open but it's useless to me as I like 35 beeing on the camera most of the time, having it in one of my jackets or in a very small case designed for point&shoot cameras.
Also, I have a lot LTM cameras which I stil use more than my single M mount. So it very much depends on the user. I'm happy if it's better than my Canon 35/2 in LTM which is great at f/8, not so great at f/2 and has a bit too much flare with backlite. It should be better because it's 40 years newer, design-wise. Probably the longer M-Hexanon 35/2 is better to compare with the ZM 35/2.
In terms of size the Summicron 35/2 IV is most close to the UC Hexanon. In particular the first 2 pictures (B&W) showed me that the Konica isn't that soft wide open in the outer areas as the Leica. I like to hear that it flares less, as I use all my 35's often against bright sky and flare can be annoying. But one should expect no "wonders" with any Gaussian wideangle lenses of the "old type". Newer Biogons and Convexo-concave designs are different.
cheers Frank
Is it just me, or do others see something very "digital" in those photos? I'm not the greatest fan of the Summicron IV, but something is very "off" in those samples, my prints (done with a Leica M6) is way more smooth. Bokeh here is almost harsh.
Well they were taken on M8 as I undersand. ;)
tbarker13
12-05-2007, 05:44
Is it just me, or do others see something very "digital" in those photos? I'm not the greatest fan of the Summicron IV, but something is very "off" in those samples, my prints (done with a Leica M6) is way more smooth. Bokeh here is almost harsh.
Perhaps you have a much finer eye than I, but I don't see a difference on screen shots. Of course, I don't have a film version of these shots to compare, so its pretty open to debate and individual opinion.
lawrence
12-05-2007, 07:47
But one should expect no "wonders" with any Gaussian wideangle lenses of the "old type". Newer Biogons and Convexo-concave designs are different...
You're so right. I've been surprised at how well my two 35mm Voigts (Ultron & Nokton) compare with my Cron IV and Lux at wider apertures. The Cron is pathetic at f2 but pulls itself together at f2.8. The Lux is better than the Cron at f2 but not as good at f2.8. The Voigts are better than either at these apertures, despite their relatively low cost. The advantage of the Cron & Lux is portability.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.