Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

My experience with M-Hexanons on the M8
Old 09-13-2010   #1
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
My experience with M-Hexanons on the M8

Good morning.

I read a lot about these lenses in the last few months and I became curious. So I bought three from different sources: A 90/2.8 for 230,--, a 50/2 for 350,-- and a 28/2.8 for 600,--

to make things clear: NONE of these did focus properly on my M8 (while all Leica, Minolta and Zeiss lenses I own do). All have backfocus, and all to a comparable degree.

now what did I do? I sent back the 28mm because it was rather expensive to begin with. Instead I got myself a Biogon and am happy.

That left me with the two longer lenses. I got the 90 first and after some tests, I put some tape on the RF cam and focus was spot on (according to Puts, the difference between Leica and Konica is 0.04mm. Most insulation tapes being in the <0.1mm thickness range this seems to be correct). But the problem with the 90 is that the RF cam rotates during focusing, putting extra stress on the tape that won't sit there securely anyways. Also, you have to manage to apply it without ripples over a longer part of the chamber back (That is pushing in the RF lever in the body) and this was trickier than I thought.

In the end I decided to send it to Don at DAG camera in the US (a hassle if you live in Europe. But I couldn't find anybody in Europe willing and able to adjust this lens. Don said he can. I hope taxes and duties won't come in as too big a shock.

Finally, the 50. It arrived yesterday evening and I was sobered to learn that it too had some back focus. But the 50 chamber does NOT rotate! thus I again put the insulation tape on the chamber. It is much easier here, because you just have to cover the small spot where it pushes the RF lever, not 1/3 or 1/4 of the whole chamber. It worked flawlessly, the RF is now SPOT on with the 50/2, but again, insulation tape is not a lasting solution.

due to the difference recorded by Puts being 0.04mm (with some tolerances), I will buy 0.035mm thick copper foil used to repair conducting parts. They are self adhesive, bend easily, can be cut easily, and have almost the perfect thickness.

Will report back when I have results with this method.

What I wanted to say: Don't buy M-Hexanons if the seller won't guarrantee that they focus correctly on the body you plan to use it with. The digital Ms seem to be bitches in regard to this. The alternative is, get a cheap M-Hexanon and be prepared to either fix it yourself if you are more of the Mc Guyver type of guy/girl or to send it to DAG, who charges around USD 90,-- for the service (+ shipping and duties and taxes if you live outside the US and are unlucky).
I don't doubt that there are many Hexanons out there that work perfectly well with digital M cameras, otherwise there wouldn't be so many posts about the success with these. But either this is luck regarding Konicas tolerances, me being unlucky with three samples of different lenses, or the lenses that work have been adjusted by Konica or a Konica workshop to focus properly on Leica M bodies.

I really can not say why, but I only know that I was disappointed that NONE of the Hex I tried focused properly.

On the other hand, I today and yesterday shot a few test shots with the Hex 50/2 with the tape in place and boy it is surprisingly sharp at f2, has nice color and contrast and creamy OOF areas. Very nice thus far
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #2
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
 
Uwe_Nds's Avatar
 
Uwe_Nds is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hameln, Germany
Posts: 813
I had the same experience with M-Hexanons and sold them.

At that time, I didn't know about www.kameraklinik.de - have you tried to contact them?

Cheers,
Uwe
__________________
The future is unwritten.


My photos on RFF


Project Sunshine

My website

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #3
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
Thanks Uwe, didn't know them. I will contact them if they adjust the M-Hexanons

the lenses themselfs are amazingly good, but that doesn't help much if you can not focus them properly
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #4
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,305
my experience, all on an M8

m-hex 28/2.8 - no focus issues
m-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
uc-hex 35/2 - no focus issues
m-hex 50/2 (2x) - misfocus
m-hex 90/2.8 - no focus issues

my understanding is that the m-hex 50/2 can be reshimmed to achieve accurate focus on the M8/9 bodies.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #5
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
reshimming makes sense, but without instructions, I think I will stick with the tape solution for now, if the repair shop isn't able to help.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #6
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
 
Uwe_Nds's Avatar
 
Uwe_Nds is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hameln, Germany
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSU View Post
I have only one M-Hexanon, a 60/1.2 and fortunately it is dead-on focus with both a M6 (.85x) and a M8.2 even wide open....
Well, that's not an M-Hexanon.

Cheers,
Uwe
__________________
The future is unwritten.


My photos on RFF


Project Sunshine

My website

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #7
kevin m
Registered User
 
kevin m is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 2,210
The issue isn't "back focus," it's some incompatibility between the RF mechanism in the camera body and the lens itself. The margin for error is fairly close on a film body, and a digital sensor is even more unforgiving.

Back focus issues would only crop up with fast, wide glass, not 50's and 90's.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #8
mathomas
Registered User
 
mathomas's Avatar
 
mathomas is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 638
I have back focus (or mis-registration) with my 90mm + M8 as well. However, the quality of the lens is such that I live with it. I'll have to try the tape technique and test it. I don't usually use the lens on my M2, but I wonder if the tape will cause the lens to significantly front-focus on that body, or will film's greater focus tolerance make it less of an issue in that context?

Am curious about the cost for re-shimming or adjusting. Kanzir, please report back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #9
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,323
I owned the:
M-Hex 28/2.8, focus issue on Minolta CLE
M-hex 35/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/2.0, no trouble
M-Hex 50/1.2, no trouble
M-Hex 90/2.8, focus issue on M8.

All lenses were shot with: Minolta CLE, Leica M3, M4, M5, M6 and M8.

I think the 0.04mm margin for error caused the trouble. I used to shoot these lenses without any hesitation when I had them and considered them flawless at the time. Only after reviewing older shots have I recently found that some lenses had issues, on specific bodies.

Presuming the OP tested his lenses wide open and closest distance: I never used them like that, unless toying around with them. I used them for daytime reportage work and street, often stopped down and 3 mtrs focus. Never any issue.

Only sold them for financial reasons and while converting to an all LTM kit. Tell you what: I'll give you USD 200 to cut your loss on that 'faulty' 50/2.0
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #10
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m View Post
The issue isn't "back focus," it's some incompatibility between the RF mechanism in the camera body and the lens itself. The margin for error is fairly close on a film body, and a digital sensor is even more unforgiving.

Back focus issues would only crop up with fast, wide glass, not 50's and 90's.
I wonder what your definition of back focus is?

back focus = the area BEHIND the subject is in sharper focus than the area you focused on. And thats what the Hexanons I have/had do. This has nothing to do with the focal length. of course it is more pronounced with shallow DoF, but if examied closely, it can be seen with all lenses.

the incompatibility is exactly that, the rf doesn't match the lens adjustment.

of course this is back focus.

and yes, I think it pops up on digital due to the one dimensionality of a sensor, the high resolution and the option to easily zoom in etc. With the 28mm Hex I had to look twice, except when I shot f2.8 at close distance, there it was obvious. With the 90 and 50 it is obvious wide open at somewhat close distances, but there is still a big resolution drop stopped down or further away. Adding tape makes it focus perfectly fine close and far away. Must be luck that the tape I use has the correct thickness.

And the fact that Konica adjusted Hexars to work nicely with Leica lenses should be a hint, too...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #11
peter_n
~
 
peter_n's Avatar
 
peter_n is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
... this is luck regarding Konicas tolerances...
Shouldn't be, their QC was legendary.


__________________
_
~Peter

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #12
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
I read about that Peter. But then I wonder why a lot of people have success with their Hex-on-M and others, like me and Uwe don't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #13
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
no problems here, sounds like a mis-calibrated M8. What Leica lenses are you using with success?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #14
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,268
M Leica ans focus problems ? ... could well be the camera ...
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #15
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
no problems here, sounds like a mis-calibrated M8. What Leica lenses are you using with success?
I was sure somebody would question the bodies calibration

Lenses that work fine:
Zeiss 28/2.8
Zeiss 25/2.8
Minolta 40/2
Leica Elmarit 90
Leica elmarit 28 v4
Jupiter on LTM adapter

Lenses with back focus:
Hex 28
Hex 50
Hex 90

See, I don't say the hex are bad and I fixed the 50 for myself and have DAG fix the 90 (he did that for several people already).
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #16
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
See, what I am really curious about is why some lenses work and others don't.
I fully believe that yours, and a lot more focus fine. But also many don't. Just a word of warning. I just went to the park to further test my hex 50/2 tape solution and out is a wonderful lens, really.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #17
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
Was your jupiter ever modified?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #18
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
Now that you ask I have to correct myself...the jupiter doesn't focus properly.According to kim from pentax manuals some shims are missing. Still, the M-mount ones all work. That and approx two months ago my M8 was in Solms for sensor repair and they said they also adjusted the camera for free.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #19
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
hmm, no idea, did you buy all 3 m-hexanons used? from the same person? perhaps they had it adjusted for their bessa or zi that needed some slight modification and now the mod needs undoing for your leica?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #20
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
no, the 90 was from classiccamera.at (very friendly people, btw), the 50 was from a forum member (dslr-forum.de) and the 28 from SH photo (German shop). So three different sources.

If ALL the M-Hex in existance would back focus, I would understand it. But that makes no sense that only some work. Maybe Konica changed something during their production? I would love to try your Hex on my M8, but I bet they would be spot on, as otherwise there would be a lot of complaints with Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #21
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,254
There is a secret to M/LTM Hexanons that nobody ever tells you. And Puts is considered to give Leica lenses favors so people disregard his technical description.

While M-Hexanons work at infinity on a Leica body at full performance (registration distance is correct), a Leica body's RF cam needs to be adjusted ever so slightly (when compared to using Leica lenses). This will be noticeably in particular on an M3.

If you use M-Hexanons only, or have your camera adjusted to the longest lens you use, the difference hardly matters in practice - it is either consistent across your Hexanons, or covered by the DOF. But if you want maximum lens performance, I do not recommend to use M-Hexanons and other lenses together on the same body.

If you use L-Hexanon lenses (that have the same RF cam calibration as M-Hexanons, in my experience) you can adjust them by grinding the adapter. Like this:



Again, the lens worked fine with a normal adapter (DOF covered the error), but to get the L-Hex's 50/2.4 max. performance, the adapter had to be modified.

I'll certainly get flamed now by M-Hex lovers .... But all my Hexanons behaved like this (several 50/2 and 90/2.8 copies, and the above 50/2.4).

Don't get me wrong, the above customization, or dedicating a body to Hexanons is very much worth it, they are stunning performers - all of them.

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 09-14-2010 at 07:56.
  Reply With Quote

well
Old 09-14-2010   #22
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
well

some of those "other" lens do get complaints:

e.g. Zeiss 50/1.5, Leica 35 lux asph (pre FLE), lux 50/1.4 asph (pre adjusting), CVs (most) ...

If someone starts with a sonnar or focus shifting lens, chances are they'll send all their good lenses in to match the focus of that first lens.

Then, they may decide to sell the lens to a normal person. Well while they focused fine for the Sonnar user, who was used to doing nods, or OOF photos, they work wrong for regular users., IMHO...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
no, the 90 was from classiccamera.at (very friendly people, btw), the 50 was from a forum member (dslr-forum.de) and the 28 from SH photo (German shop). So three different sources.

If ALL the M-Hex in existance would back focus, I would understand it. But that makes no sense that only some work. Maybe Konica changed something during their production? I would love to try your Hex on my M8, but I bet they would be spot on, as otherwise there would be a lot of complaints with Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. too.
__________________
My photo blog


Last edited by ampguy : 09-14-2010 at 07:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #23
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
Here's another thought - perhaps the ones shipped to Germany were offset a bit, since folks there like Sonnar focus shifting lenses? Zeitgeist!!
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

well
Old 09-14-2010   #24
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
well

Ken Rockwell agrees with this ...

Should I start posting all my perfectly focused M-Hex photos now, or later

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
There is a secret to M/LTM Hexanons that nobody ever tells you. And Puts is considered to give Leica lenses favors so people disregard his technical description.

While M-Hexanons work at infinity on a Leica body at full performance (registration distance is correct), a Leica body's RF cam needs to be adjusted ever so slightly (when compared to using Leica lenses). This will be noticeably in particular on an M3.

If you use M-Hexanons only, or have your camera adjusted to the longest lens you use, the difference hardly matters in practice - it is covered by the DOF. But if you want maximum lens performance, I do not recommend to use M-Hexanons and other lenses together on the same body.

If you use L-Hexanon lenses (that have the same RF cam calibration as M-Hexanons, in my experience) you can adjust them by grinding the adapter. Like this:



Again, the lens worked fine with a normal adapter (DOF covered the error), but to get the L-Hex's 50/2.4 max. performance, the adapter had to be modified.

I'll certainly get flamed now by M-Hex lovers .... But all my M-Hex lenses have behaved like this (several 50/2 and 90/2.8 copies, and the above 50/2.4).

Roland.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #25
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently
  Reply With Quote

something to ponder
Old 09-14-2010   #26
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
something to ponder

What if you adjusted your RF to work right with the Hexanons (without tape), would your other lenses still work? I'm guessing they might be more accurate than you think they are now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #27
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
I doubt the theory is correct because with the tape in place both the 90 and 50 focus is correct near and far wide open. I just don't want to tape them permanently
Why ? I'm exactly confirming what you measured with tape. At infinity the tape doesn't matter. Closer, it's the same thing as adjusting the RF cam with an allen wrench. Oh well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #28
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathomas View Post

Am curious about the cost for re-shimming or adjusting. Kanzir, please report back.
i was quoted $90 to inspect/adjust/shim an m-hex 50/2 about a year ago
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #29
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
just curious, did we all take into account that an m3 is not the same as an m8?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #30
kevin m
Registered User
 
kevin m is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
I wonder what your definition of back focus is?

back focus = the area BEHIND the subject is in sharper focus than the area you focused on.
There's some overlap in how these terms are used, but "back focus" usually refers to some misadjustment in the FFD (flange focal distance, which is the distance from the mounting flange of the lens to the film or sensor plane of the camera,) that would cause the image to be focused either forward or behind the film plane. What you're describing seems to be a compatibility issue between the rangefinder mechanism of your camera and your lenses.

Last edited by kevin m : 09-14-2010 at 17:31.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #31
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,305
roland, you are a brave fellow
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #32
naruto
GASitis.. finally cured?
 
naruto's Avatar
 
naruto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Why ? I'm exactly confirming what you measured with tape. At infinity the tape doesn't matter. Closer, it's the same thing as adjusting the RF cam with an allen wrench. Oh well.
Roland, I have an incoming 35/2 UC Hex. Will it be a problem using it on the M6? I am planning to use a FotoDiox adapter. My query is, with the wider angle lenses, will the DoF make-up for the change in flange to film distance?
__________________
~ash
-------

me @ Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #33
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,355
Don't have an M8 but my M-Hex 90mm, 50mm f/1.2 had some major backfocus with my M3. The M3 and both lenses are with Don. I also have the M-Hex 50mm f/2.0 and it seems OK, but I need to go back and check more carefully. I have lots of other Zeiss, CV and Leica lenses that focus just fine on a number of bodies, including that particular M3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #34
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,476
I wonder why M8 is the one that people have issues most when using Hexanons on it? I have 50/2, 50/1.2, 28/2.8, 35/2, 90/2.8 Hexanons now and had several copies of each of these lenses (other than 50/1.2) in the past and ALL focus fine on M5, Bessas, Hexar RFs and RD1S. And I like to use them wide open and at close distance. Is there something with M8 design that is so different? Cause if it was just a "digital sensor" thing, wouldnt I have this problem on Rd1S as well?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

My guess
Old 09-14-2010   #35
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
My guess

is that M8 photographers look at their images right away and notice if somethings up.

Film photographers, sometimes great ones, like Garry W. will have a backlog of up to 1/2 million, so since they're not getting real time feedback, they just start imagining what the pictures might look like through their RF/VFs. The M7 is probably at the current spec. the M3's are mostly out of spec by now, due to their age.

M3s don't focus closer than 1m. If yours does, you've probably thrown it out of whack for infinity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Krosya View Post
I wonder why M8 is the one that people have issues most when using Hexanons on it? I have 50/2, 50/1.2, 28/2.8, 35/2, 90/2.8 Hexanons now and had several copies of each of these lenses (other than 50/1.2) in the past and ALL focus fine on M5, Bessas, Hexar RFs and RD1S. And I like to use them wide open and at close distance. Is there something with M8 design that is so different? Cause if it was just a "digital sensor" thing, wouldnt I have this problem on Rd1S as well?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #36
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
is that M8 photographers look at their images right away and notice if somethings up.

Film photographers, sometimes great ones, like Garry W. will have a backlog of up to 1/2 million, so since they're not getting real time feedback, they just start imagining what the pictures might look like through their RF/VFs. The M7 is probably at the current spec. the M3's are mostly out of spec by now, due to their age.

M3s don't focus closer than 1m. If yours does, you've probably thrown it out of whack for infinity.
Wouldnt Bessas and RD1S have the current specs too? Yet I have no problems with my Hexanons on them.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

probably
Old 09-14-2010   #37
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,022
probably

Not sure about Bessas, but the RD1 and derivatives from the beginning supported M-Hexanons, to the max.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krosya View Post
Wouldnt Bessas and RD1S have the current specs too? Yet I have no problems with my Hexanons on them.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #38
rpsawin
RF Enthusiast
 
rpsawin's Avatar
 
rpsawin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,537
I have 4 Hexanon-M's and have no problems with them on film or digital bodies. Here is what Mr. Gandy has to say:



Some Hexar RF users report focusing problems with Leica M lenses, others do not. How could that happen?

The EXACT cause of this is a hot source of controversy on the net. Konica is not helping the situation. So far, I have received different answers from every Konica employee I have discussed the issue with. Konica USA offered to adjust the rangefinder of my camera, but admitted this would not be a complete solution. I am told Konica UK actually offers to correct Hexar RF bodies to Leica M specs, for a fee. Konica USA seems to give me a different answer every time I talk with them.

Some people swear nothing is wrong with the Hexar RF with Leica M lenses, because THEIR camera has had no problems. Others report focusing problems. Personally MY Hexar RF did NOT have correct back focus specs for Leica M lenses -- I had it repaired.

I believe the KEY to the controversy is the INCONSISTENCY -- some people have back focus problems, others swear THEY do not. How could that happen?

As suggested to me by a Konica insider, the answer may be the plus/minus tolerances used by Konica. In this scenario, depending upon how a particular camera body's set of parts tolerances add up, that particular camera MAY or MAY NOT exit the factory with back focus specs within Leica lens tolerances. I am not sure this is the solution, but I know of no other explanation which satisfactorily explains the inconsistent results reported by Konica Hexar RF shooters.

Some internet sites make a seemingly strong argument that there is NO Hexar RF back focus problem. Ask yourself a few questions before you buy into that line of thinking:

Hexar RF problems came into the public eye because SOME, not all, Hexar RF owners definitely were not getting sharp shots with the same lens on their RF, as they were from Leica bodies. If there was no problem with the RF, what was the cause of these focusing problems?

If there is no problem, why does Konica UK offer a repair service to adjust Hexar bodies to focus Leica M lenses?

If there is no problem, how did the Konica factory correct it on MY Hexar RF?

If there is no problem, why hasn't Konica publicly said the Hexar RF is fully 100% compatible with Leica M lenses? This controversy is obviously hurting Hexar RF sales. It would be to Konica's advantage to deny it and put the question to rest, IF there was no problem. Instead, Konica has publicly side stepped the issue, saying that the Hexar RF is compatible with the Konica "KM" mount. I interpret Konica's stance as another way of saying "We are not promising Leica M compatibility, because we don't want to pay for a camera recall."

Do you see any of the sites claiming there is no problem, offering to buy back or repair Hexar RF's bought on THEIR recommendation which turn out NOT to correctly focus Leica M lenses?

If you own a Hexar RF, or plan to buy one, I suggest taking it to a Leica repairman, and have them check the film plane and focusing accuracy, just to be sure -- ideally with both Konica and Leica mount lenses.

Quick and Dirty Hexar Back Focus RF test: With your RF mounted on a tripod, focus on INFINITY wide open with your WIDEST lenses. The Voigtlander 12 and 15 are especially useful to spot if your Hexar RF is not up to standard Leica M mount back focus specs. As a control point, shoot the same shots with a Leica M body you know to be in good shooting condition. Compare with a loupe. IF the results are identical, wonderful. IF you get different results with the same lens on different bodies, consider having the back focus of your Hexar RF checked by a repair tech.

Best regards,

Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2010   #39
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,406
From memory I had a couple of lenses that back focused on my M8 ... 35mm f1.2 Nokton and I think my 50mm f2 Hex was a bit out also.

I didn't use my 50mm f1.2 Canon on it often but did note that it appeared to be perfect when I did.

This is where the digtal M body falls down a little IMO. It didn't worry me too much to be honest because I'm no pixel peeper and there's other aspects to a good photo aside from sharpness ... but having a range of M mount lenses that can all behave slightly differently on a supposedly standardised platform is weird. I can focus my D700 perfectly with any F mount lens that will fit it!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2010   #40
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ampguy View Post
What if you adjusted your RF to work right with the Hexanons (without tape), would your other lenses still work? I'm guessing they might be more accurate than you think they are now.
hm. The Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is spot on, the Hex 90 focusses 1cm behind. The Rokkor is the same, spot on at f2, while the 50 Hex is approx 1cm behind the subject.

The camera was just adjusted by Leica and it is indeed spot on with the Leica lenses so why should I adjust it to the Hex lenses? I am sure it would front focus with the Leicas then.

And re the back focus thing: it IS back focus if it is focusing behind the subject no matter how far it is away. The untaped lens is not sharp at further distances wide open, but it is when taped. and it focuses spot on when tape up close, also. so it seems the cam needs to protrude 0.05mm more into the body.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.