The local Konica rep loaned his Hexar-RF lenses to one of my camera salesman buddies (funny how much they all like to see me coming!) who in turn loaned them to me for an hour. I shot comparisons, but you'll have to live with word pictures - I can't face uploading the shots for 6 lenses center and corner at 2 different apertures (6x2x4!!)

28 HX vs. 28 EM - The HX comes the closest to its Leica counterpart. A hair less sharp at all apertures and distances, but you'd need prints over 11x14 to know it. Indistinguishable contrast. The HX's big weakness is the far corners, which are fuzzy and smeared at 2.8 and never really improve. The HX also was MORE visibly softer than the EM focused at 1 meter than at longer distances. Both the EM and the HX, curiously, were sharper in the center at f/2.8 than at f/8 at 2 meters and beyond (?). 28s aren't very good bokeh lenses, because nothing ever gets that far out of focus, but the HX seemed to have (VERY) slightly softer edges to the OOF background circles. Just perceptibly lighter and shorter than the 28 EM. At the right price (used) I would give the 28 some real consideration to fill in between my 21 and 35. But neither the HX or EM grabbed me like the pre-ASPH 35 does.

50 HX vs. 50 SU(mmicron) - At f/8 they are almost indistinguishable, but at f/2 the HX is clearly weaker in resolution, although still quite contrasty. Bokeh was pretty good, but not of the 35cron/75lux variety (the primary image was too soft to 'snap' against the OOF parts - it's what Erwin calls 'a smooth transition from focused to unfocused'). And the HX has too much contrast to be a Summarit contender. Size and weight for the 50 is in between the Leica 'cron and 'lux.

90HX vs., well, everything - equal to high-end SLR short teles, but not as sharp as any Leica 90 I've tried - fair contrast control - it seems a tad flat overall, but is better into the sun than my flare-prone 90 TE. 80 grams lighter than a 90EM, and a touch smaller. Bokeh was about the same as the 90TE/90EM.

For those of you who hate focusing tabs, the Hexanons don't use them. All three have metal focusing rings engraved with a pattern similar to the rubber rings on AIS Nikon lenses. Very refined f/stops (like Contax SLR lenses), with a faint metallic 'tink-tink-tink' as you change apertures. Somewhat garish and large red and white distance and DOF scales. Smaller, darker red mounting bumps that look like they'd be less prone to being knocked loose. The 90 and 50 have built-in shades; the 28 has a screw-on shade like the 1960's Leica 35/50 shades - circular with an inward slope to the rim and cutouts for the finder - it squeaked when turned to align the cutout.

Image color for all three HX lenses was just visibly pinker than the Leica counterparts. Saturation for the 28 and 50 seemed equal to Leica, the 90 was a little less saturated (less contrast).

I saw NO sign of any .03mm incompatability between the Hexar lenses and my M4-P. The thing I focused on was the sharpest thing in the picture.

The Hexanons would make a nice cheap entry into the M-system - if they were cheap! But they cost about the same (or more) than equivalent used Leica lenses. If used ones start hitting the market at reasonable prices (28 - $450, 50 - $225, 90 - $400) they might be very useful if, for example, you don't use a 50 or 28 much but wouldn't mind having one around. I got my 50 in a kit with the RF for about that much extra, and since I usually prefer a 35 or 90 anyway, it gives me a nice chance to play with the focal length new for a third of what a rebated Summicron would cost. Who knows what that will lead to?

(More welcoming smiles at the camera counter, no doubt!) 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 27, 2001

Answers

FYI,

Last month I peddled my 50mm Hexanon f2.0 on ebay. It was essentially brand new. Pouch, cap, papers. A fellow in Japan was high bidder. I think it went for $225.00.

I did expect to get around $300 but it didn't go that high.

I found the 50mm Konica lens to be an excellent lens. I purchased the Leica 50 just to have the 39mm thread size. I found no practical difference in quality between the two lenses for my non-professional use.

I would have loved to get $450 for the lens but sure didn't get that kind of action on ebay. (I only had three bids total.) Then again, never in my life have I received a good deal on anything I have ever purchased.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), August 27, 2001.

Last Friday I bought a Konica Hexar Silver with a built-in, non-interchangeable 35mm Hexanon f2 lens.

I only bought the camera for knocking about when giving the Ms a rest, but am amazed at the quality of the 35mm lens - easily the equal of my 35mm M Summicron ASPH(!) Razor sharp, nike bokeh, little or no vignetting... amazing stuff.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), August 27, 2001.

I really do think that Konica has no kudos compared to Leica, so I think their prices will always be depressed s/h. You can look at this as being deserved, or as an opportunity. Certainly I am not sure I see the point of buying the Konica lenses new when they are so expensive - at least the Voigtlander are a significant bargain. Secondhand though they might well be a good deal.

Anyone know how well the Bessa-Rs are selling?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Konica lenses are different than Leica lenses. They may or may not suit someone's photographic style, if someone actually has one. There really isn't any better (at this point in history), except maybe for one's photographs.

People can hang their lenses on the wall with their price tags, maybe that will solve this once and for all.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 27, 2001.

I am not really computer savvy but is it that difficult to load the pictures on the net. I always believe a picture/photograph is better than a thousand words.

-- Wong KH (DOSI@maxis.net.my), August 28, 2001.

Wong KH: It isn't hard to upload a few, but to show the corners and centers of 6 lenses at 3 different focusing distances and 2 different apertures would take 2x6x3x2=72 detail images plus 9 overviews (the complete picture) to show where the details come from and how large they are in the frame - 81 images to upload, total. In addition I'd have to crop the details and make JPEGs of them...all in all about 6 hours work (yeah, yeah, I know, PAUL C. did it!!). However if someone has a specific request (showing the center sharpness of the 28s at 1 meter, e.g.) I can do that.

Jeff: I agree with your first point, which was why I avoided the use of "good/better, bad/worse" in my comments. I'm not sure I followed the second point - I don't think I implied that the value of a lens lies in its price, did I? If so, I misspoke.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 28, 2001.

Thanks Andy, I learned something beside photography today.

-- Wong KH (DOSI@maxis.net.my), August 28, 2001.