Upgrading from 50 hex to 50 cron ???

[EtoileFinder]

I'm a cheap b****** who want the best for is money when buying gear, that's why I bought an 50mm Hex as my first and only 50mm lens. Like a lot of persons, I love this lens. But lately, the idea of getting a 50 cron is haunting me . The Hex is sometimes compared with the 50 cron 4th versions some persons said, but I never try the 50 cron, so I'm a little bit skeptical. Comparing pictures tacked by both lens, I think that the cron have a little bit more contrast and I love contrast.

I just want to know if some of you had regrets by selling there 50 Hex or had experienced this same non existential and superficial question as me and how do you resolve it. I don't want to collect lens, I just want to find to right lens for me. Finally, is the 50 Hex performs so close to the 50 cron that it will be a waste of time for me to get a 50 cron.

[sepiareverb]

You're right about the little bit more contrast from the Summicron. As well, in big enlargements (16x20") the Summicron shows some finer detail, but only slightly more. I shot these two lenses side by side for a time and decided to keep the Summicron (and in fact I got a second).

[M. Valdemar]

It's more of a sidegrade or a non-grade.

If anyone can see the difference in actual images produced by either lens in a blind test, I'll write them a check for a million dollars right now. Heck, I'll even pay it in real money, like Euros or Kreugerands.

You will realize no practical difference, in fact, the Konica may be better.

I suspect it's having something with the Leica name on it that's pulling your chain.

[Freakscene]

> You will realize no practical difference

I sold my third version IV Summicron and bought a Hexanon because the Summicrons flared a lot in situations where there was angled light outside the picture area (and yes, I used a hood - in fact I tried all sorts of hoods as "fixes"). In this regard pictures are different and you are likely to notice it.

The reason I went through a series of Summicrons was that I kept thinking it was the individual lens that flared; after 3 I am fairly sure that it is the design and that they all do it. I'm still not sure if it's flare or an internal reflection. I suspect internal reflection seeing as hoods didn't help much. There is this solution:
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/0073Im
but I have problem with needing to apply a cardboard 'fix' to a lens that costs over a grand new.

If you want more contrast, use Photoshop or a 0.5 grade harder B&W filter.

Or buy a Zeiss ZM 50 Planar. They don't seem to flare either.

Marty

[awilder]

I agree with the flare issue. Resolution and contrast tests I've done with both lenses indicate the current 'cron version to be only slightly better but secondary reflections and flare can be an issue in adverse lighting especially wide open. The multicoating and fewer plano surfaces of the Hexanon or Planar help somewhat. If flare is a really big concern, consider the Zm C-Sonnar as it's design minimizes flare.

[lewis44]

I've had two 50 Hex's and all of the Summicron versions. I ended up with the tabbed Canada 50 Summicron and a Zeiss 50 C-Sonnar.
Each fits what I want and have there own specific benifits.

I don't think there is much difference between the Summicron and the Hexanon with the exception of the Summicron, last version. It does have more contrast than it's older brothers, but not much difference from the Hex.
I happen to think that the Hex is every bit the lens as the Summicrons, including build quality and it seems to flare less.

I don't think you will acomplish much switching, except satisfying your curiosity, which may be necessary. It was in my case and I would be satisfied with either

[EtoileFinder]

I suspect it's having something with the Leica name on it that's pulling your chain.

Yeah.., Vlademar you may have spotted the cause of my conundrum (is it the right word to use ?). It is the reputation of the 50 cron that intrigue me, and I say to myself maybe I'm missing something here.

[Krosya]

I used a Rigid Cron, current cron, Planar - sold them all and kept Hex. FOr me Hex is the best - Best image quality/signature, best build, best handling. So, if you feel like spending some money - just send it to me and keep Hex. ;)
Now, if you want to try something different - save some money and try Summilux or Nocti. But for the 50/2, - you really cant go better than Hex as an overall/everyday lens. For some unusual look/signature and same speed 50mm you could try Summitar or/and CV Heliar Classic. Or even Elmar (which will be 2.8).
But whatever you do, I'd advise to keep Hex.

[BigSteveG]

keep the Hex. Save more and get a proper 50mm Summilux lens. It's more practical solution.

[sepiareverb]

Yeah.., Vlademar you may have spotted the cause of my conundrum (is it the right word to use ?). It is the reputation of the 50 cron that intrigue me, and I say to myself maybe I'm missing something here.

I'll take it back then, you won't see the difference. You don't really even need the Hexanon, go for a Jupiter, you could even get another stop!:bang:

[aizan]

i'd go for a planar to replace my m-hexanon. i'd never get a summicron because of the bokeh and flare issues.

[ferider]

Easy to rationalize your GAS:

Keep the Hex (outstanding lens), get a late Summilux pre-asph. It can do stuff the Hex cann't and vice versa.

Cheers,

Roland.

[jja]

I've gone down this road, more than once! My first RF lens was a Hex. I sold it b/c I was curious about the 'cron, and regretted selling the Hex b/c I was not gaining much, except occasional flare. Along the way, I've owned many 50mm lenses, including another 'cron (latest), and have returned to Hex because it delivers images on par with the Summicron.

Yes, there are differences between the lenses. I've tried them together with the same camera, film, and subject, and awilder is right on--Summicron will deliver slightly more contrast, but "more" does not necessarily mean "better." I will also defer to Alan's other conclusions on the 'cron, because he has done extensive testing, but to me the differences between these lenses are not significant enough to warrant trading the Hex for a 'cron.

If I were looking for a different 50mm Leica, I would do what Roland has suggested, try out the last pre-asph. Summilux. That is a sweet lens, my current favorite.

[kevin m]

But lately, the idea of getting a 50 cron is haunting me .

Then it's an exorcism you need. :D

The Summicron's well-documented problem with flare is a deal-breaker, particularly considering it sells for a premium relative to the Hexanon. You may or may not EVER see a difference in resolution, contrast, etc., between the two lenses (and such pixel peeping is usually a waste of time, anyway) but you WILL see the flare when it pops in and the most inopportune and unpredictable time and ruins a shot.

[awilder]

The flare issue with the latest 'cron only rears it's ugly head if the point source of the offending light is very bright and located within the frame or even just outside the frame. OTOH, if the overal lighting is very bright but no point source of very bright light exists, the current 'cron does just fine. To demonstrate, please review my sample images in this post about two thirds down shown here: http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00DV0F .The glass for both lenses was clean and free off any haze. lnterstingly the current tabbed 'cron was clearly just a little better mainly because it was free from any veiling flare compared to the older 'cron. This gave better color saturation and shadows stayed nice and dark without veiling flare filling them in. Some find the characterisic technically better while others like the diffuse trace veiling flare to make B&W printing easier or to give that older classic look to the image. For comparison, here's a link of my test shots where the sun just outside of the frame creates those nasty secondary images on the modern tabbed 'cron: http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00DoRO

[jja]

Click the link below for a sample of three different 50mm lenses, each shot at F2 (viewing as slide show may be most useful). The lenses are M-Hexanon, Summicron current, and Summilux pre-asph. All shot on the same film, same time of day (more or less), under similar lighting conditions.

The most difficult part of this test is in the scanning and post-processing. I tried to be minimalist in my post-processing, to conserve the character of each lens. As time permits, I will add sample photos at other F-stops, and perhaps add one more lens.

Click here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10229578@N00/sets/72157606175749801/

[infrequent]

judging by the photos in the above link, the 50/2 Hexanon will be even more irresistible to many!

[awilder]

Nice images. The Summicron appears sharpest followed by the Summilux and the Hexanon comes last. These results aren't surprising and follow my own tests that I've done in the past.

[infrequent]

@awilder - judging by those images and because they are on the web all one can really confirm is that there is very little difference between all three lenses. but perhaps you know different.

[Krosya]

Nice images. The Summicron appears sharpest followed by the Summilux and the Hexanon comes last. These results aren't surprising and follow my own tests that I've done in the past.

Are you serious? If anything - they are the same. The way I see it - the only difference is in slight contrast and bokeh variations. As far as I can see from the web images - Neither one is less sharp than the other. When I tested Hexanon againsat 2 Summicrons (rigid and current) and Planar ZM - Summicrons were behind. So, all this means - there are slight sample variations as well as possible focus errors/camera calibration variations to say for sure. So, what I did (and this is what I recommend for other to do) when selecting one of these - go with the one that you prefer signature/contrast/bokeh better and ergonomics. Lens that feels comfortable is the lens that is used more often.

[awilder]

On my screen at home the differences were just noticable but all were relatively close. The slightly higher contrast and darker exposure of the 'cron probably gave it the small edge, at least to my eye. Focus of all three looked spot on.

[jja]

Thanks all for your comments, interesting to see the various takes on the images. Alan, I agree w/ your final comments re: contrast and exposure. Is it possible that the different lenses deliver slightly different exposure at F2? I couldn't figure out if the greater contrast of the Summicron was due to inherently greater contrast or darker exposure. The samples are large enough in the original to make comparisons; if I get a chance, I'll post 100%+ crops.

[awilder]

Thanks, I strongly agree that a cropped image would clear up any confusion if we were just comparing central sharpness. This is what I do when posting my test images of various lenses. Even if the results are more definitive, the test says nothing about performance outside the central zone where curvature of field and other aberration differences really kick in. If we were to take this into consideration, the ranking would differ from above depending on which aberrations bother the viewer most.

[jja]

I'll work on those central crops. In the meantime, here are the M-Hexanon, Summicron, Summilux, and now the Elmar-M at F2.8:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10229578@N00/sets/72157606180939320/

[jja]

I've added some fairly large central image point of focus crops to this set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10229578@N00/sets/72157606175749801/

Best viewed as slideshow.

[35mmdelux]

While the Hex is a great and wonderful lens, the 50 Summicron is Leica's flagship. It is Leica's most researched and worked lens. Micro-fine detail corner-to-corner, compact, and highly functional sliding hood places this lens at the top of the food chain.

[WoolenMammoth]

I wouldnt view going from a hex to a cron as an upgrade at all. Both lenses are on an identical playing field. The hex is *such* a good lens, its kinda silly what it costs compared to a cron... I use mine for fashion work when I want something that is sharper than the rest of the stable.

[ferider]

You can count on Leica releasing a 50 Summicron ASPH soon. They are overdue. As said above the current 50/2 is a rather old design.

Roland.

[kevin m]

The only thing "wrong" with the Hexanon is that it doesn't take 39mm filters. :p

[awilder]

Thanks for the crops JJA! They certainly confirm my original conclusion on just the central sharpness issue that some members seemed to take issue. The texture of the spiral design is a bit better defined on the 'cron owing to it's better microcontrast. This is what gives the image that extra "sparkle" as Erwin Puts mentioned in his lens evaluations from the Leica pocketbook. One suggestion I'd make would be to darken the exposure of both the Hexanon and 'cron to match the 'lux which seemed spot on. If you did this, the differences would become even more striking.

[drewbarb]

Go out and shoot a few rolls, and stop reading online. It'll pass.

[amateriat]

Interesting comparison, the conclusion for me being that the differences aren't really worth losing sleep over...unless losing sleep is a sporting thing for you. ;)

One of the things that I've always strived for when putting together a multi-lens camera system is a degree of of optical continuity. I've never much been into the idea of needing that 50mm lens for its unique wide-open bokeh rendering (not that bokeh is totally unimportant to me), or this 28mm lens because it possesses an MTF chart that's the dog's private parts. I want all my lenses to be good, of course, but I want them to be on the same page in terms of color rendition and contrast, and that mostly happens when the lenses in question are from the same "litter" for lack of a better term. (It also helps a little in terms of lens handling and "feel" when switching from one optic to another, but that's a bit trickier.)

When I decided the Hexar RF was going to be my Main Axe, I also decided that I would have just three lenses, all of them M-Hex: 28, 50 and 90. The 28 was my first lens, which I got together with my first HRF body, and it truly knocked me out in terms of quality...possibly the best 28 I've ever had, and I would say I've had a few damned good ones. The 50 came next, and didn't disappoint...nothing "stands out" to me about the 50, or, for that matter, the 28 or 90. They simply do what I expect a high-caliber lens to do, under all sorts of lighting conditions, and without surprises.

Microcontrast is good, but gestalt, for me, is gooder.


- Barrett

[EtoileFinder]

Thanks for all your comments. Finally I cure myself from the Leica haunting with a little bit of thinking and rationalization. I can always add more contrast in the printing. So my decision was to seek a 50mm lens which have a totally different signature. As I can't find a canon 1.2 for a decent price and the hex 50 1.2 is over my budget, I just purchased the sonnar zm.

[Andrew Sowerby]

Thanks for all your comments. Finally I cure myself from the Leica haunting with a little bit of thinking and rationalization. I can always add more contrast in the printing.

That makes a lot of sense. It's easier to add contrast than reduce it. Good call on the Sonnar. From what I've seen, it covers very different ground than the modern Hexanon and Summicron lenses.