Category: Lenses

With some exceptions, VEB Carl Zeiss Jena’s (East Germany) M42 SLR lenses were generally unknown and unavailable in North America before the fall of the Eastern bloc and the rise of easy international internet transactions. Today, many agree that 1960s-80s CZJ 35mm lenses are not only outstanding compared to their contemporary competition from Europe and Japan, but also remain capable of producing unique and pleasing images not necessarily offered by today’s advanced optics.

For the most part, CZJ lenses were never cheap and thus mostly out of reach for the average citizen of the Eastern Bloc. The most widely-produced camera lenses produced by CZJ were in M42 screw mount, in Exakta mount, and for the 6×6 Pentacon. While the single-coated 1950s and 1960s versions of these lenses were fairly outstanding for the SLR technology of the time, the advent of the multicoating in the 1970s only made many of these lenses much better.

When it came to M42 cameras and lenses, Japanese manufacturers like Pentax, Yashica, Chinon, and Fujica dominated the North American market. Perhaps because of the prevailing geopolitics of the time, CZJ lenses only made a limited appearance in the United States between the 1950s and 1980s. While the full lineup of its M42 lenses was never marketed and sold in North America, one could find CZJ lenses in the following places:

Praktina/Praktica SLRs: Certain 1950s and 1960s East German Praktina and Praktica SLRs came bundled with an M42 CZJ 50mm f/2.8 Tessar. As time went on, Praktina disappeared; and Prakticas were sold with cheaper standard lenses from other East German manufacturers like Meyer Optik and Pentacon.

Exakta: A number of the single-coated CZJ lenses were available for the Exakta camera system.

Werra: CZJ made the lenses for the “Werra” compact camera system. The Werra series did not sell very well in North America, and it seems that only the 50mm f/2.8 was readily available.

Pentacon Six: Several CZJ lenses were available for the East German Pentacon Six medium format system.

Carl Zeiss Jena Multicoated Lenses in M42 Mount

The final generation of CZJ multicoated M42 lenses, produced from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, were not offered directly for sale in North America. It is possible that there was a way to special order these lenses, but that remains unclear. Here is a list of the primary late-model multicoated Zeiss Jena M42 lenses, excluding zooms produced for it by third parties and small batch / experimental lenses.

Lens	Replaced?	Design	Min. Focus	Filter	Weight	Availability
20mm f/2.8 Flektogon	20mm f/4	9/8	0.19m	67mm	350g	Common
28mm f/2.8 (Made in Japan)	29mm f/2.8	5/5	0.20m	49mm	180g	Common
35mm f/2.4 Flektogon	35mm f/2.8	6/6	0.20m	49mm	236g	Common
50mm f/1.8 Pancolar	50mm f/1.8	6/5	0.35m	49mm	220g	Common
80mm f/1.8 Pancolar	80mm f/2.8	6/5	0.83m	58mm	308g	Rare
135mm f/3.5 Sonnar	135mm f/3.5	4/3	0.90m	49mm	430g	Common
180mm f/2.8 Sonnar	180mm f/2.8	5/3	1.70m	86mm	1365g	Common
200mm f/2.8 Sonnar	—	6/4	2.20m	77mm	1200g	Rare
300mm f/4 Sonnar	300mm f/4	6/4	3.00m	86mm	2070g	Rare
500mm f/8 Fernobjentiv	—	2/1	6.00m	77mm	1743g	Very Rare
35-70mm f/2.7-3.5 Pancolar	—	9/8	0.8m	58mm	375g	Very Rare
80-200mm f/4	—	12/8	1.1m	52mm	622g	Rare

With the downfall of the M42 lens mount during the mid-to-late 1970s and Praktica’s 1979 adoption of the “B mount,” CZJ ended up producing some multicoated lenses for that system, a mix of remounted versions of their M42 lenses and a few new models. Although it had some promising prototypes floating around, CZJ was essentially out of the 35mm SLR lens business by the mid-1980s.

When we talk about any 35mm SLR lens produced from the 1960s to the 1980s, their strengths do not typically lay in their raw objective optical performance. It was not until the widespread introduction of new types of glass and the addition of aspherical elements during the 1990s that higher-end SLR lenses made a giant leap in performance. However, what is special about certain M42 lenses is that they have compelling and pleasing rendering at close and mid-range distances. The manner by which the lens can separate a subject from its background in a smooth and non-busy way remains a kind of subjective measure of objective optical performance.

Excluding lenses that are super rare and/or cost-prohibitive, building a set of CZJ lenses comes down primarily to personal preferences for certain focal lengths. In my opinion, the magic is with the 35mm f/2.4, the 80mm f/1.8, and the 200mm f/2.8. However, the 50mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/3.5 can substitute for the more expensive 80mm and 200mm. A few words about the line-up.

20mm f/2.8 MC Flektogon: I believe that the 1963 20mm f/4 Flektogon may have been the first widely-available non-mirror-lock-up SLR lens in the 20mm/21mm focal length (Leica and Nikon did not introduce their first 20/21s for a few years later). Nearly all 1960s-80s 20/21 SLR lenses use some variation of the Flektogon’s general optical design. The 2.8 Flektogon is a substantial resdesign of the original lens, but still within the same framework. However, despite the internet hubbub and its current high prices, there is nothing particularly special about the f/2.8 Flektogon lens compared to the contemporary competition. Nearly every manufacturer had a f/2.8 21mm lens by the late 1970s. I find that all of these 1960s-80s 21mm lenses tend to exhibit complicated distortion and need to be stopped down significantly to achieve their peak performance. It was not until the 1990s when 21mm lens performance began to improve dramatically. That being said, the minimum focusing distance of 0.19m is pretty incredible. In my opinion, these lenses cost too much if the 20/21 focal length is something you may only use occasionally.

20mm f/4 Flektogon	20mm f/2.8 Flektogon

28mm f/2.8 MC: CZJ did not produce this lens in-house but rather subcontracted it to a Japanese manufacturer (Cosina? Sigma?). During the 1970s, CZJ did market under its own name a “29mm f/2.8 MC” M42 lens, but it appears to have been a rebadged Pentacon or Meyer Optik product. Because the native East German lenses in this focal length do not have a particularly good reputation, it is probably a good thing that CZJ sent this one out. Because the word is out that these are not “real” CZJ lenses, they remain pretty cheap if you can find one.

35mm f/2.4 MC Flektogon: The f/2.4 Flektogon replaced the earlier 35mm f/2.8. The 2.8 followed the conventional wisdom in the focal length at the time, a large front element with either a Tessar or Planar-type group behind it (for instance, Nikon’s first and second generation 35mm f/2.8 lenses both used this scheme). The 2.4 had a completely new design and its design is unlike contemporary designs from Japan in the 35mm focal length. While much internet hyperbole exists on this lens, it remains pretty special. Its close focusing ability alone (down to almost 1:2 macro) is probably worth the price of admission. With unique rendering and color rendition, better-than-average center sharpness and light fall-off, and good wide-open performance, if you own just one CZJ lens, I would suggest it to be this one. It is really best employed at close-to-mid distances. Watch out for barrel distortion, as it has a significant amount at certain distance/aperture combinations. When the word got out on this lens, it shot up in value and remains expensive.

35mm f/2.8 Flektogon	35mm f/2.4 Flektogon

50mm f/1.8 MC Pancolar: The 1.8 Pancolar updates the older single-coated “Zebra” version of the lens. The Pancolar’s basic lens design had not changed since 1967. The relatively-affordable Pancolar is emblematic of the CZJ character, with an emphasis on center resolution with pleasing effects to the outside of the frame and behind the subject. There is plenty of appreciation for this lens; and if you prefer the 50mm focal length, this is the East German M42 lens to get.

Pre-1967 Pancolar	Post-1967 Pancolar

80mm f/1.8 MC Pancolar: As the story goes, the 80mm was developed to plug a large gap in the CZJ lens line between 50mm and 135mm to replace the older 80mm f/2.8 Biometar (made for the Pentacon Six and often adapted to M42) and the world-famous 75mm f/1.5 Biotar (a lens that can cost thousands of dollars today if you can find one). From its schematics, the 80mm is essentially a type of 50mm lens design. The 80mm was only produced in relatively small quantities and was extremely expensive at the time. Its close focusing distance of only 0.83m is somewhat limiting. That being said, the Pancolar is arguably among the best of CZJ M42 lenses. It is very compact, sharp and useable wide open, renders gently, and does a better job of background separation than the 50mm. That being said, the current high prices demanded for the 80mm reflect more of its rarity than its raw performance. It really should be a $200-300 lens. However, it is one of those lenses you will probably never part with.

80mm f/2.8 Biometar	80mm f/1.8 Pancolar

135mm f/3.5 MC Sonnar: I do not have any direct experience with this lens and do not regularly use the 135mm focal length. The lens has a great reputation and should not disappoint. They are cheap and plentiful in the MC version.

180mm f/2.8 MC Sonnar: This ginormous lens was not designed for the M42 mount at all, but rather for the 6×6 medium format Pentacon Six. With its original design going back to the 1930s, CZJ updated this lens with MC for the 1970s. CZJ designed the 180mm to work also on M42 cameras via an adapter that retained automatic aperture operation. Given the weight and bulk of this lens, it is not ideal at all for handheld 35mm use. Otherwise, it is a stunning lens. One of the best 180mms out there for pure close and mid-range character. While they used to be relatively affordable and plentiful, prices have been creeping up.

200mm f/2.8 MC Sonnar: Perhaps realizing that its 180mm lens designed for medium format was not ideal for compact 35mm cameras, one of CZJ’s last “new” M42 designs was the 200mm f/2.8. This lens is noticeably smaller and lighter than the 180mm and can be used handheld with some effort. This lens is another true winner for close and mid distances. The maximum aperture of f/2.8 makes this lens far more versatile and easier to focus than the host of 200mm f/4 lenses out there. Like the 80mm, the prices currently demanded for the 200mm reflect its rarity rather than its performance, which has long been eclipsed by modern lenses.

180mm f/2.8	200mm f/2.8

Buying Carl Zeiss Jena M42 Lenses

As a coherent lineup in the 35mm format, it is difficult to find a better set than CZJ’s multicoated M42 lenses. With a mix of new and updated designs, it was a shame that these lenses were not generally available in North America. Because the word has been out on these lenses for a long time, and because of the insatiable appetite of the adapted digital crowd for “effects” lenses, the more desirable CZJ lenses are neither cheap nor often easy to find. If looking to purchase a CZJ from abroad through the internet, which is the easiest way to locate one currently, you should assume that the copies that were in the “best condition” have long already been sold. Many of the lenses for sale today are probably either recent discoveries or those that may have been well-used for decades. In addition to actual lens condition, many of these lenses will need a professional once-over, normally including a relubrication, if they have been sitting for decades.

During the 1950s, Konishiroku Corporation (Konica) gained a deserved reputation for producing high-quality fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder cameras, most notably the I, II, and III series. During this era, Konica also produced in some number three Leica screw mount (M39) lenses: the collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Hexar, the rigid 50mm f/1.9 Hexanon, and the super-fast (and essentially unobtainable) 60mm f/1.2 Hexanon. The f/3.5 and f/1.9 lenses came normally bundled with several mid-1950s Japanese-market M39 cameras like the Chiyotax IIIF and Leotax models like the “F” and the “T.” However, it does not appear that either these Chiyotax or Leotax models or the standalone M39 f/3.5 and f/1.9 lenses were ever marketed in North America. A version of the f/3.5 Hexar was used in the Konica IIB and IIBm rangefinder cameras. A version of the f/1.9 Hexanon was used in the Konica IIA and III rangefinder cameras.

The 50mm f/1.9 Hexanon is a beautifully-crafted and relatively compact lens with a chrome barrel, click-stops for aperture, Konica’s trademark 1950s amber-colored single lens coating, and the standard-for-the-era infinity lock. As with most quality 1950s M39 lenses, they sure don’t make them like they used to. It is not quite clear how long the M39 Hexanon was produced. I would guess until about 1957 or 1958. By 1960, Konica’s camera division was focusing almost exclusively on developing a competitive 35mm SLR and the next generation of fixed-lens rangefinders.

Specifications

	50mm f/1.9 Hexanon	50mm f/3.5 Hexar
Lens Mount	M39 (Leica Screw Mount)	M39 (Leica Screw Mount)
Aperture Range	f/1.9 – f/22 in Click Stops	f/3.5 – f/22 in Click Stops
Optical Design	6 Elements / 5 Groups	4 elements / 3 groups
Weight	260g
Filter Thread	40.5mm	34mm
Minimum Focus	1.00 meter (3.3 ft)	1.00 meter (3.3 ft)
Aperture Blades	10

By the mid-1950s, certain Japanese companies were producing numerous different M39 screw-mount cameras based more or less on the basic Leica III design. These cameras were optimized and built around the 50mm focal length. While wider lenses existed at the dawn of the 1950s, mainly in the 28mm and 35mm focal lengths, they were initially very expensive and required users to use an external finder to frame the photo. Canon, Chiyoda (later “Minolta”), Honor, Leotax, Melcon, Nicca (a/k/a “Tower” in the USA), Tanaka, and others produced thousands of these cameras, with many, but not all, being available for export outside of Japan. At the same time, in addition to numerous European offerings, there was a mind-boggling number of different Japanese-made M39 standard lenses. Many of these lenses shared remarkable physical and optical characteristics with each other, leading one to wonder if in reality much of this production was sourced to the same subcontractors.

Here is an attempt to compile a list of known standard M39 lenses (excluding the Sonnar derivatives and some of the f/3.5 lenses) manufactured in Japan during the 1950s. This list is not exhaustive but provides a taste of how many different M39 standard lens options existed at the time.

Brand	Focal Length	Year	Lens Design	Filter
Canon	50mm f/1.2	1956	7 Elements, 5 Groups	55mm
Canon	50mm f/1.4 II	1959	6 Elements, 5 Groups	48mm
Canon	50mm f/1.9	1949	6 Elements, 4 Groups	40mm
Canon	50mm f/1.8 I	1951	6 Elements, 4 Groups	40mm
Canon	50mm f/1.8 II	1956	6 Elements, 4 Groups	40mm
Canon	50mm f/1.8 III	1959	6 Elements, 4 Groups	40mm
Canon	50mm f/2.8 I	1955	4 Elements, 3 Groups	34mm
Canon	50mm f/2.8 II	1957	4 Elements, 3 Groups	40mm
Canon	50mm f/2.8 III	1959	4 Elements, 3 Groups	40mm
Chiyoda	45mm f/2.8	1947	5 Elements, 3 Groups	34mm
Chiyoda	50mm f/1.8	1958	6 Elements, 5 Groups	46mm
Chiyoda	50mm f/2	1954	7 Elements, 6 Groups	40.5mm / 43mm
Chiyoda	50mm f/2.8	1954	5 Elements, 3 Groups	40.5mm
Honor	50mm f/1.9	1957?	?	?
Honor	50mm f/2	1958	6 Elements, 5 Groups	?
Fujinon	50mm f/1.2	1954	8 Elements, 4 Groups	58mm
Fujinon	50mm f/2	1957	6 Elements, 5 Groups	43mm
Fujinon	50mm f/2.8	?	?	?
Leotax	50mm f/2	1958	?	40.5mm
Nicca	50mm f/2.8	1957?	?	?
Nikon	50mm f/1.1	1956	8 Elements, 7 Groups	62mm
Nikon	50mm f/3.5 Micro	1956	5 Elements, 4 Groups	34.5mm
Olympus	40mm f/2.8	1950?	5 Elements, 4 Groups	?
Piotar	45mm f/1.9	1957?	6 Elements, 4 Groups	?
Tanar	50mm f/1.2	1959?	?	?
Tanar	50mm f/2.8	1955	4 Elements, 3 Groups	?
Topcor	50mm f/1.5
Topcor	50mm f/1.8
Topcor	50mm f/2
Topcor	50mm f/2.8
Yashica	50mm f/1.8	1959	6 Elements, 5 Groups	43mm
Yashica	50mm f/2.8	1959	5 Elements, 4 Groups	40.5mm
Zunow	50mm f/1.1 I	1953	9 Elements, 5 Groups	?
Zunow	50mm f/1.1 II	1955	8 Elements, 5 Groups	54.5mm
Zunow	50mm f/1.9	?	7 Elements, 4 Groups	40.5mm

The Hexanon employed a fairly new (for the time) and complicated lens design with a six elements in five groups. The Hexanon appears to be closest to Voigtlander’s “Ultron” design. According to the 1950 Voigtlander patent, this design was a step forward for double-gauss standard lenses by minimizing coma, improving field flatness, and reducing certain aberrations in a relatively-fast lens. Konica certainly did not verbatim attempt to “copy” the Voigtlander design. The Hexanon is also of a different design than the contemporary Canon Double-Gauss lenses.

So how does the Hexanon compare to other contemporary lenses in its focal length, class, and price-point? In my opinion, the Hexanon is a capable and lovely lens, held back only by its era-standard 1.00m minimum focusing distance and more dampened focusing compared to modern lenses (which is a matter of preference for many). When using the lens on a Leica M with an adapter, there are no issues with the infinity focusing lever interfering with the lens release button or self-timer or any blocking the rangefinder window. After using modern Leica M-mount lenses for years, these 1950s lenses are real works of art in themselves.

The main downside of the Hexanon today is it has become a victim of the endemic “price-creep” on anything collectible or Leica. Fifteen years ago, a good example could be scored for around $200 or less. An even better deal might have been to buy the generic M39 camera on which the Hexanon came and then turn around and sell the body for a few bucks. However, because Hexanons are currently being marketed $500 or more, the price makes it a bit less attractive option for “screwing around.” The best case for paying the premium for the Hexanon would be for the great performance, wonderful build quality, and, let’s be honest, the chance to use a rare Leica-mount lens that was never really known in the West.

Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the late 1970s, most major camera manufacturers introduced a series of advanced, compact, fixed-lens rangefinder cameras. Konica’s entry into this class was the 1973-77 Auto S3. The highlight of this camera was its 38mm f/1.8 Hexanon lens. The 38mm Hexanon on the Auto S3 was not “new;” it was the optic from Konica’s 1966 Auto SE with different coatings. Although no formal Konica lens diagram exists for the lens, we can guess that its six group, four element lens was a regular symmetrical design (1-2-2-1) common during the era. By the 1960s, this type of design for a moderate wide-angle was nothing new, as famous lenses like the 1951 Nikon 35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor and the 1958 Leica 35mm f/2.8 Summaron had used similar schema. Although the origin of the lens design is unknown, an educated guess that Konica simply “stretched” its 45mm f/1.8 used in its contemporary cameras like the the Auto S2. Unlike the Auto SE version of the 38mm Hexanon, which could focus down to an incredible 0.6m, the Auto S3 version was limited to 0.9m minimum focus, most likely because of the limitations of the camera’s short rangefinder-baselength design. Other than in the Auto SE and the Auto S3, it does not appear that Konica used this lens design again. Some have said that the later 1978 Konica 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon SLR lens may be “related” to the 38mm Hexanon, but I do not believe that to be the case. The design is different (1-2-2-1 versus 1-1-1-2-1); the 40mm’s design is similar to almost every other Planar-style SLR lens of the time; and Tokina, not Konica, produced the 40mm.

For decades, photographers have raved about the performance of the higher-end fixed-lens rangefinders of the 1970s. The standard lens for many of these cameras was a 40mm f/1.7. The 1970s Leica-Minolta collaboration also designed and produced a 40mm f/2 Leica M-mount lens for the Leica / Minolta CL. Although there is no apparent reason to doubt the favorable impressions that many had of these fixed-lens rangefinder cameras during the film era, the fact that these lenses were built-in to their camera bodies has made testing them on digital impossible, unless those lenses were surgically extracted from their bodies and re-mounted for use on a digital platform.

Because I had a junked Konica Auto S3 sitting around with a perfectly good lens, I reached out to Leica Spanker in Germany to see whether it would be theoretically possible to adapt the 38mm Hexanon to Leica M. A short time later, a standalone, rangefinder-coupled 38mm Hexanon landed on my doorstep. Leica Spanker not only adapted the lens to Leica spec, but also fabricated an aperture ring where none had existed before (remember the Auto S3 was a shutter-speed priority camera). I would highly recommend them.

So, the question that has been on many’s minds for nearly 50 years: how good is the 38mm Hexanon? Does it live up to the decades of hype? In short, it is a really good lens for 1966. For a lens that was never intended to compete with the top-tier of interchangeable rangefinder lenses, and selling in 1973 for around 1/3 of the asking price for a Leica CL with a 40mm f/2 lens, it remains highly-capable. While it noticeably flares wide open (old lens coatings), has just a minimal amount of barrel distortion (about +1 or sometimes +2), and has noticeable light fall-off wide open, by its optimal f/2.8-f/11 range, it is a sharp, contrasty, relatively well-corrected, and competes with any Leica, Canon, or Nikon 35mm focal-length rangefinder lenses of the 1950s-60s. Its center resolution both wide open and throughout its range is stunning for a lens of this class and price, although its corners are not top tier.

The 38mm Hexanon is perhaps most comparable in overall capability to the 35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor or the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, both of which have a similar 1-2-2-1 design. The 38mm Hexanon performs better overall than the W-Nikkor but not as quite as well as the Summaron. Against the 1956 35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor, the Nikkor is clearly, but not significantly, the better lens as it has better distortion control and corner resolution (remember that the f/1.8 was a ridiculously expensive lens at the time and not many were produced). However, on a 24mp digital sensor, the 38mm Hexanon’s center sharpness is at the limits of the sensor’s ability to resolve it.

Given its general competitiveness with just about any 1960s rangefinder lens, the most significant shortcoming of the 38mm Hexanon is its 0.9m minimum focusing distance. The Auto S3’s extremely short effective rangefinder baselength most likely could not focus accurately an f/1.8 lens at any closer distance. Even at that minimum distance and at f/1.8 (where the Hexanon is capable but not at its very best), it is difficult to get in close enough to a subject for pleasant separation. If you are considering having a similar conversion done, think about doing the Auto SE version of the 38mm Hexanon instead, as it can focus down to 0.60m. Otherwise, the converted Auto S3 lens is light, comparable in size to any compact 35mm f/2 rangefinder lens, and has a very short focus throw (about 15% or so of the lens barrel radius from 0.9m to infinity). Although the lens itself is small, its barrel still requires a rather large 49mm filter. Fortunately, a standard wide-angle 49mm lens hood does not block a Leica rangefinder.

Comparisons

Here is the 38mm Hexanon’s specifications compared to 1951 35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor, the 1956 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor, and a 1958 Leica 35mm f/2.8 Summaron.

	35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor	35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor	35mm f/2.8 Summaron	38mm f/1.8 Hexanon
Year	1951	1956	1958	1966
Design	6 elements, 4 groups	7 elements, 5 groups	6 elements, 4 groups	6 elements, 4 groups
Min. Focus	0.9m	0.9m	0.7m	0.6 (SE) / 0.9m (S3)
Filter Size	43mm (Old Style)	43mm (Old Style)	39mm	49mm

Some Wide-Open Digital Snaps

Because I shoot film almost exclusively, I do not really use adapted lenses on mirrorless cameras for personal photography. However, because some digital snapshots may provide a better idea of how the 38mm Hexanon works in the “real world,” here are a few examples. These are all take on a Nikon Z6 at f/1.8 with some distortion and levels corrections. As you can see, the Hexanon is a flare-y at f/1.8, has noticeable light fall-off in the corners, has incredible shallow depth of field on digital wide-open, and its out-of-focus background details are occasionally a bit busy. But all of these are pretty par for the course for any 1950s-60s rangefinder lens. Otherwise, the images are perfectly pleasant with the standard corrections.

21mm lenses were originally developed for the purpose of aerial photography during the 1930s. Using a 1946 Russian-patented design as a template, in 1954 Zeiss (West Germany) would introduce the first widely-produced 21mm lens for 35mm cameras.

The 21mm focal length remains a difficult medium to create compelling images. Although 21mm lenses certainly are capable of capturing plenty of context, “context” does not necessarily equal “compelling.”

21mms And Other Super Wides Are Not Real Substitutes for Perspective Control Lenses For Architecture and Landscapes. While it may seem counterintuitive, 21mm lenses actually not ideal for architecture unless you can level the lens with the subject, instead of “looking up” at the subject. When one “looks up” at a subject with a 21mm lens, a fair to great amount of vertical perspective distortion is created. Vertical perspective distortion is a combination of the focal length of the lens plus the angle of view. Because of inherent wide angle distortion, this is why “perspective control” tilt-shift lenses were developed — which for the most part are/were made in the 24-35mm focal length.

Some folks will tell you that you can use Photoshop to correct the distortion created by “looking up” at a subject. However, for this to work, you purposefully must include much more area around your subject or otherwise it will be cropped out. The less level the lens is, the more area will be cropped. Furthermore, while small tweaks are usually not a big deal, when you use software to radically correct distortion, you are really creating something that does not reflect reality and optics — the resulting image is not what the lens captured, not what your film/sensors recorded, and not what your eyes actually saw. Whether such things even matter anymore to anyone in the 21st century is another story.

Here is an example of a correction of a situation where the lens was not level to the subject.

21mm Lenses Can Be Really Effective When Used Extremely Close and Level to a Subject. In my opinion, 21mm lenses are really effective at getting really close and level to a subject. Not only can you isolate a close subject, much more background context can be captured than a traditional portrait lens.

Because longer lenses inherently has less vertical distortion when”looking up” (as the angle of the lens to the film/sensor plane is less extreme), a good rule of thumb is to try any wide shot with a 35mm or 28mm lens first, and only go wider if those focal lengths cannot capture the subject.

With all of that preface, in this piece, we are going to look at some old and new lenses that fairly exemplify the evolution of thought and design for 21mm lenses — the 1954 Zeiss Biogon 21mm f/4.5 (Contax rangefinder), the 1979 Yashica ML 21mm f/3.5 (C/Y), the 1979 Konica Hexanon 21mm f/2.8 (AR), the 2002 Konica M-Hexanon 21-35mm f/3.4-4 (Leica M), and the 2004 Zeiss Biogon 21mm f/4.5 (Leica M). The purpose of “testing” these lenses against each other is not to make any declarations about whether a lens is capable of delivering quality images, which is almost always an unresolvable debate, but to evaluate their strengths, weaknesses, and differences.

1954 Zeiss Biogon 21mm f/4.5

Specifications

Mount: Contax Rangefinder
Optical Design: 8 elements in 5 groups
Aperture: f/4.5 – f/22 continuous
Aperture Blades: 8
Minimum Focus: 1.00 meter
Filter Size: 40.5mm
Weight:

Lens Design

A good place to start with 21mm lenses is with the first ever mass produced — the Zeiss Biogon 21mm f/4.5 in Contax rangefinder mount. Up until the development of the 21mm, the widest available 35mm lens was the limited production 1951 East German Zeiss Jena 25mm f/4 Topogon — a pre-war design that did not reach production until after the war. The Zeiss Jena Topogon was extraordinarily expensive at the time. Both Nikon and Canon would produce their own Topogons — the 1953 W-Nikkor 25mm f/4 and the 1956 Canon 25mm f/3.5. Today, both the original 25mm Zeiss and Nikkor lenses are extremely rare collectors’ items. The Canon 25mm is still relatively affordable and more widely available.

The history of the development of the 21mm Biogon is interesting. Rather than the Russians adapting a German lens design, here the Germans took inspiration from the Russians. The short version is that in 1946, Russian optical designer Michail Rusinov finally patented a design for symmetrical super wide angle with a relatively wide aperture with excellent corner illumination. Dr. Ludwig Bertele, working for Zeiss (West Germany) at the time, used this innovative design as a blueprint for what would eventually become the Biogon.

Produced from 1954 to 1961 exclusively in Contax rangefinder mount, with an optically-identical mirror lock-up Contarex SLR version being produced well into 1960s, the Biogon was the first commercially-available 21mm lens for 35mm cameras. In 1958, Leica introduced its first generation Super Angulon 21mm f/4. Nikon would follow in 1959 with the Nikkor-O 21mm f/4 (another hopelessly rare and expensive collectors’ item). Although its date of introduction is not entirely clear, it appears that in 1956, the Soviets produced its non-rangefinder-coupled Russar 20mm f/5.6 in Leica screw mount, which was produced in various iterations into the 1990s. Recently, Lomography commissioned the re-launch of a “Russar+” (still not rangefinder-coupled), which still remains available for purchase.

Although the Biogon was designed for the Contax rangefinder system, the lens will mount and is “close enough” in focusing to use on Nikon rangefinder cameras. The Biogon has a “flare shield” loosely screwed into the rear element housing that can be removed pretty easily. The Biogon will adapt perfectly to digital mirrorless cameras with the appropriate adapter. The Biogon will also reportedly work fine on the Voigtlander Bessa R2C and R2S if the flare shield is removed. Unfortunately, the Biogon will not mount to any OEM or aftermarket Leica M camera body with any currently-available adapter — the rear element housing contacts Leica’s rangefinder mechanism and there is no present way around it.

The Biogon came with a dedicated non-parallax corrected external viewfinder. The viewfinder does not win any awards, but it works. It is not clear if a dedicated lens hood exists. The Biogon is a rather heavy, but an absolutely gorgeous lens. The MTFs are very impressive for a 1950s lens and can be found here (these are the MTFs for Contarex version but it is the same lens).

1979 Yashica ML 21mm f/3.5

Specifications

Mount: Contax C/Y
Optical Design: 12 elements in 8 groups
Aperture: f/3.5 – f/16 click stops
Aperture Blades: 6
Minimum Focus: 0.3 meter
Filter Size: 72mm
Weight: 370g

Lens Design

The first generation of 21mm lenses for SLRs was simply adapted rangefinder lenses. Because the rear lens housings of rangefinder 21mms would interfere with an SLR’s mirror, the first generation could only be used if the mirror was “locked up.” As a practical matter, because one could not use the mirror, the lenses would have to be used with external finders and scale-focused only. Examples of these mirror lock-up lenses included the Nikkor-O 21mm f/4, the Contarex 21mm f/4.5, the Minolta 21mm f/4. the Yashica 21mm f/3.3, and the first generation Leica Super Angulon 21mm f/4. There were other mirror lock-up lenses made even wider than 21mm. Needless to say, on an SLR, these lenses were not very practical at the time and are not particularly popular today.

To fully adapt super wide angle lenses to SLRs required a different type of lens design — one that would place the rear lens elements well in front of the mirror. It would not be until the mid-1960s that the second-generation “retrofocus” lenses emerged. This included the Nikkor-UD 20mm f/3.5, the Konica AR 21mm f/4, and the Leica Super Angulon-R 21mm f/4. These lenses all shared a suspiciously similar external design as well as mostly took large 72mm filters. By the late 1970s, a “third generation” of 21mm SLR lenses began to emerge — slightly faster (f/2.8), more compact, and taking the normal-sized filters for the camera system.

As the well-documented story goes, at the end of its rope with its flailing Contarex SLR line, Contax (West Germany) partnered with Yashica (Japan) early 1970s to produce a new SLR system under two brands that would share the same lens mount (“C/Y”). The first camera body produced under the joint venture would be the 1975 Contax RTS followed by the Yashica FX-1 and Yashica FR.

At launch, the RTS promised to be a full professional system. Contax offered a number of retrofocal super wides — a 15mm f/3.5, 16mm f/2.8, and a 18mm f/4 (with the 16mm and 18mm designs being carry-overs from the Contarex era). Contax would not produce a native C/Y-mount 21mm f/2.8 until the 1994, very late in the game. Needless to say, the Contax 21mm Distagon is extremely sought after today and is now often a $2,000+ lens, with well-used examples selling for far more than used modern Zeiss ZE or ZF 21mm lenses. I’m sorry, but no film-era 35mm prime SLR lens is worth $2,000 for those who shoot, rather than collect.

It would not be until 1979 that Yashica would produce a 21mm lens in C/Y mount. It has both the design and features of a “second generation” 21mm SLR lens. According to an interesting write-up, Yashica used the 1968 Leica R 21/4 Super Angulon as its inspiration. The original clamp-on rectilinear lens hood for the Yashica is difficult to find, but any of the hoods designed for the 72mm generation of 21mm lenses should work — like the HN-9 for the Nikon-UD 20mm f/3.5.

The ML 21mm lens has remained popular and somewhat pricey because it remains the best and only OEM alternative in native C/Y mount to the expensive Contax 21/2.8. There is also some indication that Yashica did not produce that many copies.

1979 Konica AR Hexanon 21mm f/2.8

Specifications

Mount: Konica AR
Optical Design: 9 elements in 8 groups
Aperture: f/2.8 – f/22 click stops
Aperture Blades: 6
Minimum Focus: 0.2 meter
Filter Size: 55mm
Weight: 215g

Lens Design

During the 1960s and 1970s, Konica’s primary reputation in the photography world was as an above-average lens designer. Although Konica would never produce a truly professional 35mm camera body, its lens designs were ahead of the general curve until the late 1970s.

One of the hardest to find Konica AR lenses is the 21mm f/2.8. Like many of the late 1970s and 1980s Hexanon lenses, the 21mm was produced for Konica by Tokina. The Hexanon can be classified as a “third generation” 21mm SLR lens, redesigned from Konica’s 1965 21mm f/4, packaged in a smaller barrel, and using Konica’s standard 55mm filter thread. What is remarkable about the Hexanon is the ability to focus down to 0.2 meters. Because of its rarity and corresponding price, not much is objectively known about the performance Hexanon other than a few glowing user perspectives.

2002 Konica M-Hexanon 21-35mm f/3.4-4 (Leica M)

Specifications

Mount: Leica M
Optical Design: 11 elements in 10 groups
Aperture: f/3.4 (21mm) f/4 (35mm) – f/22 click stops
Aperture Blades: 10
Minimum Focus: 0.8 meter
Filter Size: 62mm
Weight: 295g

Lens Design

In 1999, Konica introduced its excellent Hexar RF camera that, in a way, helped usher in the present revival of rangefinder photography. Since the discontinuation of the Canon rangefinder system in the early 1970s, the only other non-Leica rangefinder was the 1980 Minolta CLE. During the 1990s, Konica made small runs of Leica screw mount lenses — a collapsible 50mm f/2.4, a 35mm f/2, and a 60mm f/1.2. At the launch of the Hexar RF, Konica introduced three brand-new lenses in Leica M mount — a 50mm f/2, a 28mm f/2.8, and a 90mm f/2.8. It would later add a limited edition 50mm f/1.2 and a 35mm f/2. However, the Hexar RF system would not be long for the world as Konica would soon merge with Minolta and then disappear forever into a Japanese conglomerate.

The arguably premiere M-Hexanon lens most likely is the 2002 21-35mm f/3.4-4. The idea of a multi-focal length rangefinder lens has its origin with the 1998 Leica 28-35-50 f/4 Tri-Elmar. Although the Konica 21-35 did not appear to sell well during its run, folks are now appreciating how useful the lens is — perhaps the ideal travel lens. It is a wonderfully sharp lens at both 21mm and 35mm has and an advanced, complicated design. As you can see above, the middle and rear lens groups shift back and forth to effectuate the focal length shift — this is pretty much the same operation as the Leica Tri-Elmar. Focusing is completely internal, so the lens does not physically move with the focus.

The M-Hexanon is a larger lens that tends to block the viewfinder on the 35mm frameline for most Leica M rangefinder cameras. What is very interesting is that on a digital system, the lens can actually continuously zoom and focus throughout its range (although the intermediate focusing will not be accurate on using rangefinder focus). It came with a dedicated external finder displaying 21mm and 35mm framelines as well as a square bayonet-style rectilinear lens hood.

The only publicly-available MTFs for the 21-35 at 21mm and f/3.4 and 35mm and f/4 are pretty good — but not earth-shattering. However, at 35mm at f/4 the original Leica 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar clearly surpasses the Konica. At 21mm, the current Leica 16-18-21 f/4 Tri-Elmar also bests the Hexanon. However, it must be remembered that the M-Hexanon cost around $1,000 new with an included hood, finder, and cases, while a used original 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar is, on a good day, a $2,800 lens and the 2006 16-18-21 costs over $6,000 — and neither of the Leica lenses include a finder.

2004 Zeiss C Biogon T* 21mm f/4.5 (Leica M)

Specifications

Mount: Leica M
Optical Design: 8 elements in 6 groups
Aperture: f/4.5 – f/22 click stops
Aperture Blades:
Minimum Focus: 0.5 meter
Filter Size: 46mm
Weight: 190g

Lens Design

In 2004, Zeiss introduced a brand-new 21mm f/4.5 in Leica M mount. Although marketing it as the spiritual successor to its original 1954 Contax rangefinder lens, it has nothing in common with it from a design perspective. The 21mm f/4.5 Biogon is also a completely different design from the 1990s Contax G 21mm f/2.8 and the current ZM 21mm f/2.8.

The MTFs for the Biogon are off the charts with very, very little distortion. From the data sheets, the f/4.5 version is a better performer than current Zeiss ZM 21mm f/2.8 and the Leica 16-18-21 at 21mm. The usual internet commenters have raved about it. For digital users experiencing “color fringing,” check this out. Comparing the MTFs against the current Leica 21mm f/2.8 ASPH, the Zeiss lens has far less distortion but the Leica appears to edge out it out in overall performance — but not by much and not in a way you could notice. However, despite possibly being one of the best 21mm camera lenses ever produced, the f/4.5 version has been discontinued but remain a tremendous value on the used market.

Although the lens has the typical Zeiss provision for a bayonet-style lens hood, it does not appear that one was made. However, there are numerous quality aftermarket hoods for the 21mm Biogon. Zeiss also offers a separate 21mm accessory viewfinder — the ZL-21, which is fairly expensive. Any 21mm finder should do.

Rangefinders Versus SLRs

I prefer to use lenses wider than 28mm on SLRs rather than rangefinders. There are a few reasons for this.

SLR Lenses Can Focus More Closely: In general, SLR lenses can focus down to much closer distances than rangefinder lenses. A traditional Leica M rangefinder’s closest focusing distance is 0.7m. SLR 21mms can focus down to 0.3m and in some cases 0.2m. This makes quite a difference with how versatile a 21mm lens can be.

External Rangefinder Viewfinders Are Not Entirely Accurate: With SLRs, what you see through the viewfinder is basically what you get. With rangefinders, super side angle lenses require the use of external, shoe-mounted viewfinders. These viewfinders are not only not entirely accurate in themselves, but also sit above the actual viewing area of the lens itself — which leads to inaccurate framing. While some of these viewfinders have etched parallax lines for close focusing distances, that is not a great substitute for the real thing. External viewfinders also do not provide an accurate representation of the field curvature of the lens — for instance, the viewfinder will show a “flatter” and “closer” image than the lens will produce. Of course, the pricey Leica Universal Viewfinder can solve many of these issues — however, it still sits above the actual view of the lens. The only Leica M rangefinder camera that works “ok” with 21mm and 25mm lenses is the Voigtlander Bessa R4A and R4M — which provides parallax-corrected framing at the correct lens level.

Lens Tests

Before getting started with this, the usual caveats apply. None of these lenses were designed for digital mirrorless cameras. Film is a much different medium from a digital sensor as the former has thickness and a slight curvature. Although many people use their mirrorless cameras to evaluate film-era lenses, it still not clear that a digital sensor is an adequate gauge of performance on film. However, digital sensors definitely and accurately gauge how film lenses perform on digital.

These tests were taken on a Nikon Z6 on a tripod at either 200 or 100 ASA with all automatic corrections turned off and a quick white balance in Photoshop. Also, it is somewhat difficult to precisely focus 21mm lenses on a Z6 because the viewfinder zoom function does not get close enough to the subject and these lenses have large depths of field anyway. Thus, we are not looking for pixel-peeping sharpness so much here as for light fall-off, coma, flare, field curvature, and distortion. The Z6 can adequately gauge lenses on these metrics. Click on the images below for a 4500 pixel view.

Distortion

Biogon 21mm f/4.5: The Biogon remains an impressive optic nearly 70 years later. While relatively heavy, the Biogon is a somewhat difficult lens to use on digital because its incredibly long focus throw requires more effort to focus it precisely (which of course is not an issue for Contax and Nikon film rangefinders). The Biogon’s aperture selection is also rather cumbersome because it is on the front of the lens. True to its reputation, the Biogon has really impressive distortion control. There is a fair bit of corner light falloff at wider apertures. As with all other 1950s lenses, the Biogon’s single lens coating permits a bit of flare and resulting loss of contrast. Also, the 1.00m closer focusing distance limits its versatility. Because performance peaks at f/11, I would suggest aiming to shoot at that aperture for hyperfocal subjects.

Yashica ML 21mm f/3.5: The Yashica’s performance is about as good as it gets for an older SLR 21mm. Shots are normal apertures are as about a sharp as you need. However, the Yashica not only suffers from some barrel distortion, but more importantly, some “wavy” distortion that is not easily corrected. You can correct for the barrel distortion, but then the horizontal lines towards the edges will still bow outwards towards the viewer. There is a little color shift on digital at f/3.5, but it soon goes away.

Konica AR 21mm f/2.8: The AR performs pretty well for a f/2.8 21mm 1970s lens. It is compact, uses a smaller filter size, easy to use and to focus on digital. At f/2.8, the performance is usable but not great — there is a distinct color shift on digital and there appears to be some pretty noticeable flaring. However, at f/4, the lens is light years ahead, and by f/8-11, it is at its peak. The AR exhibits more barrel distortion than the Yashica, and also has similar “wavy” distortion.

Biogon ZM 21mm f/4.5: This Biogon is really easy to use and easy to focus on digital. The lens is sharpest of the bunch. There is very slight barrel distortion that is easily corrected and does not have any “waviness.” The modern Zeiss lens coatings control flare very well and everything is sharp. The Biogon is overall the best of the lenses looked at here.

Konica 21-35mm f/3.4-4: Although quite large for a rangefinder lens, the Konica is very easy to use and focus on a digital camera. The Konica is also a sharp modern optic. It has more barrel distortion than the new Biogon, but it is also of the easily-correctible type. However, the Konica does suffer from one phenomenon not experienced by the other lenses on the list — noticeable focus shift. While I have not noticed any obvious effect on film, this is not an issue on digital mirrorless cameras with real-time focus.

Conclusions

What separates a good from a great 21mm lens is: (1) distortion control; and (2) a close focusing ability. Even if a 21mm lens does exhibit barrel distortion, as long as it is the type that is easy to correct, it is not a big deal. While a 21mm lens is not a substitute for a perspective control lens for critical applications, it can work in a pinch. The five lenses looked at here are all very good, yet different. Like most 21mms, they all hit their peak at f/8 or f/11. They all have noticeable light fall-off at wider apertures. While the SLR lenses can focus much more closely, both the Yashica and the Konica (along with many other 21mm SLR lenses) both exhibit hard-to-correct “wavy” distortion. The Biogons both have excellent distortion correction and the Konica Dual has some barrel distortion, but is easily correctible.

21mm lenses are rarely cheap, and the prices for these lenses today do not necessarily reflect their performance, but their relative rarity: Original Biogon ($700+), Yashica ML ($300-400), Konica AR Hexanon ($300-500), Biogon ZM (@ $500-700), and the Konica Dual ($2,000+). For dual film and digital use, the ZM Biogon is probably the best bang for the buck. Of course, there are many other alternatives out there not looked at here.

Today, Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander continue to produce fantastic 50mm rangefinder lenses, and there is little doubt that the current generation is generally far better than anything that came before. While certain people will always desire the absolute newest and most expensive lenses, older lenses remain capable of taking great photos both on film and digital. In this piece, we are going to compare some older and affordable “fast” 50mm rangefinder lenses to attempt to ascertain their relative strengths and weaknesses: (1) the 1948 Jupiter-3 50/1.5; (2) the 1959 Canon 50/1.4 II; and (3) the 1962/2000 Nikkor-S 50/1.4. Comparing lenses under the same conditions can often tell us much more than looking at a single lens in a vacuum.

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 (1948)

Specifications

Optical Design: 7 elements in 3 groups.
Minimum Focusing Distance: 1.00m
Aperture: f/1.5 – f/22 (continuous, no click)
Mount: Leica Screw Mount (M39)
Filter Size: 40.5mm
Weight: 140g

As the familiar story goes, as part of the “reparations” exacted from Germany after the war, the Soviet Union appropriated much of Zeiss’ intellectual and real property. Before and during the war, Zeiss had produced its fast and famous 50/1.5 “Sonnar” lens in Contax rangefinder mount with a much smaller number manufactured in Leica screw mount. After the war, Zeiss split into separate West German and East German (Jena) entities. Zeiss Jena continued to produce the 50/1.5 Sonnar in Contax rangefinder mount after the war. The Sonnar also became the basis of many longer SLR lenses designed by both West and East German Zeiss entities.

By 1947, the Soviets has prototyped their own Sonnar copy. By 1948, it was in production. Christened the “Jupiter-3,” the Soviets, in different factories over the years, produced the lens in M39 for its “Zorki” cameras and in Contax rangefinder mount for its “Kiev” cameras. With periodic variations in barrel and exterior design over the years, the Jupiter-3s were produced well into the 1980s. Lomography even managed to re-pop these lenses for a time as the “Jupiter-3+, with the newer version focusing down to 0.7m and having multicoated glass. Unfortunately, these are no longer being produced.

There has been much debate whether the Jupiter-3 in M39 were actually collimated from the factory in precise Leica specification. The consensus seems to be that most Jupiter-3s in M39 were not. If you are planning on using a Jupiter-3 on a Leica M39 or M rangefinder camera, and the history of your particular example is unknown or in doubt, you should strongly consider retaining an experienced camera repairperson who can properly adjust your Jupiter-3. The discontinued Jupiter-3+s are properly collimated for Leica out of the box.

By reputation, the Jupiter-3 is not considered to have substantially improved upon the original Sonnar’s performance. It was always a single coated optic and quality control in the various Soviet factories that produced them was not always the best. However, the Jupiter-3 has plenty of fans as the lens has traditionally been the cheapest “copy” of the Sonnar template and its wide-open performance can be used to good effect.

The first two numbers of the serial number of Soviet lenses typically indicate their year of production. This black paint example (seemingly rare for the period) appears to be from 1962 and has a purplish lens coating.

Canon 50/1.4 Type II (1959)

Specifications

Optical Design: 6 elements in 4 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance: 1.00m
Aperture: f/1.4 to 22 (full click stops)
Mount: Leica Screw Mount
Filter Size: 48mm
Weight: 246g

In 1939, Canon produced the “Model J,” a screw-mount 35mm rangefinder camera However, the J’s lens mount was not the same thread as Leica. Because the war seriously disrupted Japan’s domestic camera industry, it was not until afterwards that Canon was able to launch a series of admirable and well-selling M39-mount lenses and cameras.

In the mid-1950s race to produce “super fast” 50mm lenses, Canon introduced its famous 50/1.2 in 1956 — the fastest commercially-available lens then produced in M39. The 50/1.2 is a very cool lens — having owned one many years ago, our impression was that its performance at f/1.2 and f/1.4 was not great.

In 1957, Canon followed the 1.2 with the “Type 1” 50/1.4. Canon slightly tweaked the 1.4 with the “Type 2” in 1959. The Canon 50/1.4 has always enjoyed a good reputation as a solid performer with “acceptable” performance at f/1.4 with much improved performance at f/2 and smaller. The functional downsides include a minimum focus of only 1.00m and a rather stiff aperture ring. It was an extremely popular lens that came as an option on numerous Canon rangefinders. Today, they are rather cheap and plentiful.

Olympic/Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (1962 & 2000)

Specifications

Optical Design: 7 elements in 5 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance: 0.9m
Aperture: f/1.4 to 16
Mount: Nikon S
Filter Size: 43mm
Weight: 178g

Nikon gained a reputation in the late 1940s and early 1950s for the production of a series of excellent rangefinder lenses made in both its own “S Mount” and in M39. One of its most popular lenses of the 1950s was the single-coated Nikkor-S.C. 50/1.4, a design based upon the Sonnar template, but not really a “copy” of the original 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Contax lens.

By the late 1950s, the landscape had changed. The Sonnar was out, and the Gauss was in. In 1962, Nikon released its Nikkor-S 50/1.4 lens for its F SLR. Around the same time, Nikon redesigned its 50/1.4 rangefinder lens, in anticipation for a “re-release” of an black-paint Nikon S3 rangefinder. This latter variation of the 50/1.4 is now commonly known as the “Olympic” Nikkor — as it was advertised in conjunction with the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo. The design was closer to that of the Nikkor-S SLR lens than either the contemporary Canon or Leica Summicron design.

Fast forward to 2000 when Nikon embarked on an ambitious project to recreate from the ground up its iconic 1958 S3 rangefinder. The story of the project is fascinating and worth a read. Nikon recreated its “Olympic” Nikkor but with multi-coated (instead of the original single coated) optics and a standard modern filter size (43mm x .75). After a limited run, Nikon ended production of the new S3 in 2002. The “Millennium” Nikkor 50/1.4 is a little difficult to find as a standalone lens because it was sold as a set with the S3. Many people buy the set, put the S3 back in its box, and use the 50/1.4. Of course, with the Amedeo adapter, the Nikkor can be fully functional on your Leica M camera.

Comparisons

We are going to take these three lenses plus a Konica M-Hexanon 50/2 and take three series of shots on a Nikon Z6 mirrorless camera with all automatic corrections turned off. We are most interested in evaluating these lenses for sharpness, distortion, coma, and flare control. Click on an image below for a 4500 pixel version.

Bookshelf Test

f/1.4-1.5

• 

• 

• 

f/2

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

• 

Infinity Test

f/1.4-1.5

• 

• 

• 

f/2

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/11

• 

• 

• 

• 

Outdoor Close Up Test

f/1.4-1.5

• 

• 

• 

f/2

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

• 

f/11

• 

• 

• 

• 

Assessment

So what are we seeing here?

Overall, the M-Hexanon is clearly the best “all-around” lens of the four — followed by the Nikkor-S, the Canon, and the Jupiter-3. But there are certainly plenty of nuances.

Despite center sharpness being fairly good for centered close-up subjects, the main problems with the Jupiter-3 are flare, coma, light fall-off, and weak corner performance. The flaring appears at all apertures, at its worst wide-open, but gets progressively better as the lens stops down. The light fall-off continues to about f/4-5.6. At no aperture do the outside parts of the frame resolve as well as any of the Japanese lenses. The ancient single lens coating of the Jupiter-3 is likely responsible for the flaring and coma. The emphasis on centered subjects at closer distances is characteristic of older Sonnars. Weirdly, my Jupiter-3 has trouble focusing to infinity with a standard Leica M to Nikon Z adapter — doubly weird because usually these conservatively-designed adapters permit the “overfocusing” of infinity with most lenses. The Jupiter-3 does render a “warmer” color image than the Japanese lenses. The distortion appears to be of the minor pincushion variety, but it is not that noticeable in everyday situations. To me, out of the box, the Jupiter-3 may be a “two aperture” lens — for close up shots at f/2-2.8, or for distance shots at f/8-11.

The other three lenses can be considered “all-around” 50mms — that is to say that they can shoot well throughout their range. They all have similar low-levels of barrel distortion and good field curvature control. The Canon is a far better lens than the Jupiter-3 by just about every metric. Although the Canon also flares at wider apertures, it is not as bad. The Canon also has better corner performance and better center resolution than the Jupiter-3. Light fall-off in the corners is noticeable until about f/4. The Canon really nails it at f/8. However, it is consistently behind in all major metrics to the M-Hexanon and the Nikkor-S.

The Nikkor-S and the M-Hexanon are perhaps the most similar of the bunch. While the Nikkor-S also has some flare at f/1.4-2, it pretty much is gone after f/2. The M-Hexanon is pretty much flare-free at f/2 and renders a sharper image across the entire frame. However, the Konica does seem to have some purple fringing at f/2-2.8. While the Konica certainly outpaces the Nikkor-S from f/2 to f/4, the lens performance between the two is pretty much indistinguishable at f/5.6 and smaller. At f/5.6-f/11, the performance differences generally among the Canon, the Nikkor-S, and the Konica are small, but noticeable upon a critical look.

Focus Shift

Focus shift is a phenomenon present in varying degrees in most lenses were the point of focus shifts at different apertures. Focus shift is not really an issue for mirrorless cameras because most of the time, the user is focusing a lens at the effective aperture for that shot in real time — in other words, in aperture priority mode, the user sees the actual focus point of the lens at a particular aperture. However, for film and for rangefinder use on a digital M camera, 50mm lenses have a much shallower depth of field and by their nature have less tolerance for focus shifting.

In this group of lenses, the Jupiter-3 demonstrates the most amount of focus shift — in this case, pretty extreme backfocusing at the lens is stopped down. This phenomenon exists throughout its aperture and focus range. The shift is severe enough that under a close look one would probably notice it on film. With a digital M, you should determine at what aperture your Jupiter-3 lens is focusing accurately with the rangefinder — with many Sonnars, this is going to be somewhere around f/1.5-2.8. The other three lenses have some shift, as most all lenses do, but it will be nothing to worry about on mirrorless digital or on film.

Conclusions

In a certain sense, these types of tests are silly because all four lenses are capable of delivering outstanding images — especially on film. However, the above photos reveal maybe what we should have known all along. In overall performance, the M-Hexanon 50/2 is the clear winner. In turn, the Nikkor edges out the Canon. The Jupiter-3 comes convincingly in fourth. However, remember that the M-Hexanon and the Jupiter-3 may need a collimation adjustment to work perfectly with Leica M bodies.

Besides raw optical performance, an important consideration for any of these lenses is the minimum focusing distance. Almost all modern rangefinder lenses can focus at least down to 0.7m (some even closer for digital use). Only the M-Hexanon can focus to 0.7m, while the Nikkor is only 0.9m, and the Canon and Jupiter-3 are only 1.00m. Although 0.3m may not seem like much (about one foot), it makes a big difference in how close you can get to your subject.

Although not a subject of this piece, now over 20 years old, and not an 1.4 lens, the M-Hexanon remains a really good value ($450-600); but we would imagine that many of the Zeiss and Voigtlander modern 50mms probably have surpassed it by now. The Canon ($250-350) is plentiful and cheap. The Nikkor-S is going to be a little difficult to find as a standalone lens and will require a custom adapter ($250 for an adapter any $600-800 for the lens). Jupiter-3s are everywhere, and prices fluctuate; but one can find good examples in the $100-200 range — and unless you can DIY it, most of these lenses will require the additional expense of a collimation check.

At the end of the day, any these older lenses are fun to use, capable of delivering outstanding images, and good values. However, these tests confirm the general rule, and our experiences in testing lenses, that modern lenses are almost always better “all-around” performers than “classic” lenses. Happy shooting!

If you enjoyed this article, please feel free to leave a comment below. We would love to hear your feedback.

In 1951, Nikon introduced its 35mm f/2.5 lens for its rangefinder cameras, the then-fastest mass-produced lens in the 35mm focal length. Up until that time, the gold standards had been the 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss Biogon (produced mostly in Contax rangefinder mount, with some in Leica screw mount) and the late 1940s 35mm f/3.5 Leica Summaron. It was not until 1958 that Leica introduced the next generation of its 35mm rangefinder lenses: the 35/2.8 Summaron and the 35/2 Summicron for use with its M2 and M3 cameras.

Although the Summaron is well-known, the W-Nikkor has traditionally received far less attention. Because the W-Nikkor and the Summaron share a similar symmetrical double-gauss design, why would we think that one would clearly out perform the other? Evaluating the W-Nikkor as an alternative to the Summaron makes some sense as the former is a far cheaper lens in both its Nikon RF version ($200-300) or the Leica screw mount version ($300-500). With the availability of the $250 Amedeo adapter, the plentiful Nikon RF version of the W-Nikkor can now work perfectly on an M body. On the other hand, the prices for used Summarons have been slowly creeping up in price, with the non-goggled version now often exceeding $1,000.

Let’s take a closer look at the operation and performance of these two contemporaries (and rivals) to see how they perform and whether one clearly bests the other. What we are endeavoring to do is get past the superlatives often used in online discussions and try to get a sense of the actual abilities of these lenses.

The 35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor (1951-1960)

From 1948, Nikon produced a 35mm f/3.5 lens in its own rangefinder mount and later in Leica screw mount. The 35mm f/3.5 was a simple 4 element, 3 group Tessar design. In 1951, Nikon followed up with the 35mm f/2.5. The W-Nikkor had a completely different design than the prior f/3.5 – a symmetrical scheme like Leica’s 1940s Summaron.

The W-Nikkor was produced in two primary versions, in Nikon S mount and in Leica screw mount. Some unknown number was also probably made in Contax RF mount. Check out this page for some good visuals of the various iterations of the W-Nikkor.

The Nikon RF versions came in a chrome barrel and then later in a black paint version. Both are very handsome designs. For most of the production, the W-Nikkor came in the design pictured above, with its aperture settings visible on the inside of the lens. Only in the final iteration of the lens did Nikon produce a version where the aperture selector ring is visible on the exterior of the lens. This last version now is rare and expensive collector’s item. The Leica screw mount version has a completely different external appearance and some different specifications. It is slightly heavier, has a much more traditional 1930s/40s Leica exterior lens design, cannot focus as closely as the S mount version, and takes an odd filter size.

	Nikon Rangefinder	Leica Screw Mount
Years Produced	1951-1960(?)	?
Optical Design	6 elements, 4 groups	6 elements, 4 groups
Aperture	f/2.5-22	f/2.5-22
Aperture Blades	8	8
Min. Focusing Distance	0.9m	1.0m
Weight	111g	126g
Filter Size	43mm x 0.50m	34.5mm / Series VI

Leica Summaron 35mm f/2.8 (1958-1974)

Between 1956 and 1958, Leica introduced three M-mount 35mm lenses for its M3 and M2 cameras: the 35mm f/3.5 Summaron (the same design as its prior screw mount lens), the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, and the 35mm f/2 Summicron. The Summaron and Summicron both came in two different versions: (1) a “goggled” version for use with the Leica M3; and (2) a detached version originally for use on the M2.

Lens Mount	Leica M and Leica Screw Mount
Years Produced	1958-1974
Optical Design	6 elements, 4 groups
Min. Focusing Distance	0.65m (M3); 0.70m (M2, M4, M6, etc.)
Weight (Lens Only)	210g
Aperture Blades	10
Filter Size	39mm

After discontinuing the Summaron in 1974, Leica would not produce another 35mm M-mount rangefinder lens slower than f/2 until the 2007 35/2.5 Summarit.

Performance

Conventional wisdom would suggest that the Summaron would outperform the Nikkor. But does it? Let’s try both on a Nikon Z6 to see whether where each lens falls. To see how these older lenses compare with a modern optic, we will throw the Biogon-type Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 into the mix. A full-frame 24 megapixel sensor should give us some sense of both lenses’ strengths and weaknesses.

Before we start, let’s review some impressions of those who have gone before us. According to Nikon, the development of the 35mm f/2.5 presented a variety of difficult optical challenges. Nikon’s prior 35mm f/3.5 was a Tessar derivative and its 50mm f/1.5 and 50mm f/2 rangefinder lenses had been Sonnar derivatives. According to its technical data, we would expect the 35mm f/2.5 to have excellent resolution in the center, very little overall distortion, good field curvature correction, but to exhibit “front focus” at the corners wide open that should get gradually better as the lens stops down.

Let’s start with the infamous “bookshelf test” at about 1.1 meters from the subject. Click on each image to bring up a larger image. Or if you want, just scroll down to “Conclusions.”

f/2.5

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

F/4

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

Let’s now look at a typical daylight shot at a building in the distance.

f/2.5

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

Here is a closer object at about 0.8m. It was too close for the W-Nikkor — so it’s just the Summaron and VC here.

f/2.8

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

Finally, here is a cute little neighborhood book deposit box.

f/2.5

• 

• 

f/2.8

• 

• 

• 

f/4

• 

• 

• 

f/5.6

• 

• 

• 

f/8

• 

• 

• 

Conclusions

The Summaron beats the other two consistently in distortion control. Both the W-Nikkor and VC have similar levels of barrel distortion through the range.

The VC lens is the “sharpest” lens of the three. It renders in a very modern and clean way. At the same time, the VC has lots of weird light fall-off a wider apertures. The fall-off is very noticeable at f/2.5, and one can still discern it in daylight shots even at f/8. The light fall off after f/2.5 is not a deal killer and on film or digital may not even be noticed, again unless you are looking for it. The VC lens consistently produces larger digital file sizes and overall captures more detail than either the Summaron or the W-Nikkor. It probably can be said that the VC is the “best” lens of the three based on a totality of performance factors, but it cannot be said that the VC is “clearly” better in all aspects.

In a head-to-head between the Summaron and W-Nikkor, neither lens knocks the other out. Both lenses are rather well-corrected for field curvature and chromatic aberrations. Because of its ancient single lens coating, the W-Nikkor suffers from flare that is apparent indoors and outdoors. Besides the W-Nikkor’s flaring, I cannot discern any noticeable difference in center sharpness between the two lenses at any aperture. The corners of the Summaron are also slightly better than the W-Nikkor throughout the range — but not by much — I would attribute any difference to distortion and the quality of the lens coating. Neither lens has an advantage in light fall-off. In many situations, the W-Nikkor is producing larger digital file sizes than the Summaron at f/2.8 and f/4. By f/5.6 and f/8, both lenses are producing images of roughly equal detail. The W-Nikkor renders a “cooler” color image than the Summaron.

In the 35mm focal length, you cannot go wrong with any of these lenses, especially on film. The W-Nikkor (in either Nikon S or Leica screw mount) is generally 1/4 the price of a Summaron. On the other hand, the Summaron is cheaper than any version of the Leica 35/2 Summicron. Whether you would choose one lens over the other may come down to personal preference. If you just want to get the job don for the least amount of money, certainly consider the VC. For its performance, it is probably the best value in an M-mount 35mm focal length lens. If you want to enjoy the classic rangefinder experience and tend to shoot film, the W-Nikkor and Summaron are both a pleasure to use.

During the Autoreflex era, Konica produced two lenses in the 35mm focal length: a 35mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2. Konica would later outsource to Tokina the production of a second, perhaps slightly better 35mm f/2.8. Today, the original f/2.8 is a fairly common lens on the used market while the 35mm f/2 remains somewhat rare and expensive.

Following the tumult of the Second World War, manufacturers of early 35mm single-lens reflex cameras sought to develop wider angle lenses than standard 50mm lenses. In 1950, two lens designers each came out with their own retrofocal 35mm lenses: the Angeniuex 35mm f/2.5 (France) and the Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.8 Flektogon (East Germany). The two designs shared similar overall characteristics, with a large curved front element followed by a smaller rear group. The Angenieux design used a Tessar-syle rear group and the CZJ design used a Biometar/Xenotar-style rear group. Without a doubt, these two designs provided the template for at least the first generation of 35mm focal-length SLR lenses to follow.

During 1959-60, Japan-based companies Canon, Nikon, and Konica each unveiled their first SLRs, the Canonflex, the Nikon F, and the Konica F. The launch of these cameras was accompanied by the unveiling of a whole system of lenses. Among these were the Canon 35mm f/2.5, the Nikon 35mm f/2.8, and the Konica 35mm f/2. For 1962, Nikon redesigned its 35mm f/2.8 with a double-gauss style rear group. During the early 1960s, 35mm focal-length SLR lenses were quite expensive to produce and all were fairly pricey.

Konica’s 1960 F-mount 35mm f/2 was for a few years the fastest SLR lens in the focal length. With a massive 72mm front filter and weighing 360g, the lens was a monster. It is a rare and highly-collectible lens today. The following year, Konica introduced a cheaper and smaller 35mm f/2.8. The f/2.8 was very similar in design to the first Nikon 35mm f/2.8 lens.

In 1965, Konica abandoned its F mount altogether and introduced its brand-new lens “Autoreflex” line of camera bodies and lenses. Among the initial lenses offered for the system was the carried-over 35mm f/2.8. At some time around 1972-73, Konica introduced a brand-new 35mm f/2 around the launch of the Autoreflex T3. The f/2 version had nothing in common with the Flektogon-inspired design. The later versions of both lenses evolved with Konica’s barrel redesigns, using rubber focusing rings. Despite the differences in barrel design, the lens designs remained unchanged.

During the late 1970s, Konica contracted out certain lens designs to Tokina. Among the Tokina-produced lenses was a new version of the 35mm f/2.8. The Tokina lens was again a Flektogon-derived design, superficially resembling the 1962 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor non-Ai lens. Today, this second-generation 35mm f/2.8 is surprisingly rare and pricey. Although I have never used one, it can’t believe that it is anything special.

In my opinion, the 35mm f/2 is clearly the better lens overall, has wonderful and gentle rendering at the wider apertures, and remains generally one of the more desirable Autoreflex lenses. Let’s take a look.

Specifications

	35mm f/2 AR	35mm f/2.8 (f/16) AR
Year	@ 1972	1965
Taking Angle	63 degrees	63 degrees
Design	9 elements, 7 groups	6 elements, 5 groups
Aperture	f/2 – f/16 in half-click stops	f/2.8 – f/16 in half-click stops
Minimum Focus	0.3m	0.3m
Filter Size	55mm	55mm
Weight	320g	240g

Tests

The following were taken on a Nikon Z6 with all automatic corrections turned off. We tweaked the white balance but otherwise made no other substantive changes. Click on the images below to see a 4500 pixel version.

Flat Surface Test

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

Outdoor Shots

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

Indoor Shots

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

Conclusions

The advantages of the f/2 over the f/2.8 are: (1) speed; (2) better center and corner sharpness; (3) less light fall-off at wider apertures; and (4) creamier/dreamier/more pleasant out-of-focus details. On the other hand, the advantages of the f/2.8 are: (1) less visible distortion; and (2) its ability to capture more detail in the out-of-focus areas. Both lenses ultimately hit their respective peaks at around f/8-11.

If you regularly use a Konica SLR, the f/2 is great a lens to own. If you are a digital mirrorless user and are looking for “classic SLR lens rendering,” this f/2 will also not disappoint. It is completely useable wide open with pleasant out-of-focus details, is pretty sharp at its optimal apertures, and has plenty of old lens “character.” Any distortion that bothers you can be easily fixed in post.

At the same time, the f/16 version of the f/2.8 is nothing special. It performs adequately, but not spectacularly. It has so-so wide open performance and does not hit its peak until about f/8-11, and even there it demonstrates good, but not great, performance. Maybe Konica’s later f/22 version is better? Who knows?

In this piece, we are going to look at two 35mm rangefinder lenses produced more than 40 years apart: the W-Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (1956, Nikon S Mount) and the Konica UC-Hexanon 35mm f/2 (2001, Leica Screw Mount). These lenses are rather unique in rangefinder lens history because of their use of a modified “Xenotar” (or “Biometar”) design. It is assumed, but not officially documented by either company, that Konica used the the W-Nikkor’s design as the inspiration for the lens in its 1993 advanced point-and-shoot the “Hexar AF” and then its limited-edition M39 lenses, the 1990s Konica 35mm f/2 Hexanon and the 2001 UC-Hexanon.

Background

From the 1930s through the 1950s, rangefinder lenses in the 35mm focal length existed in four basic different designs: (1) the Zeiss Biogon; (2) the Zeiss Biometar / Xenotar; (3) the more-or-less symmetrical Gauss-type; and (4) the Zeiss Tessar. Because Zeiss (East and West German) and Nikon departed the rangefinder market by the early 1960s, the symmetrical Leica and Canon designs were the last ones standing. Here are some of the principal lenses from the era in each category.

“Classic” Zeiss Biogon

Manufacturer	Model	Mounts	Year
Zeiss	35mm f/2.8 Biogon	Contax	1936
Zeiss (West Germany)	35mm f/2.8 Biogon	Contax	1950
KMZ (Soviet Union)	35mm f/2.8 Jupiter-12	Contax / M39	1947-50
Cosina Voigtlander	35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar	Contax / Nikon S / M39 / M	2000

Biometar / Xenotar

Manufacturer	Model	Mounts	Year
Zeiss (East Germany)	35mm f/2.8 Biometar	Contax	1950
Nikon	35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor	Nikon S / M39	1956
Konica	35mm f/2 Hexanon	M39	mid-1990s
Konica	35mm f/2 UC-Hexanon	M39	2001
Nikon	35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor (Reissue)	Nikon S	2005

Symmetrical (or Mostly) Gauss-Type

Manufacturer	Model	Mounts	Year
Zeiss	35mm f/4.5 Orthometar	Contax	1937
Leica	35mm f/3.5 Summaron	M39 / M	1946
Canon	35mm f/2.8 Serenar I	M39	1951
Nikon	35mm f/2.5 W-Nikkor	Nikon S / M39	1951
Zeiss (West Germany)	35mm f/3.5 Planar	Contax	1954
Canon	35mm f/1.8	M39	1957
Leica	35mm f/2.8 Summaron	M39 / M	1958

Tessar / Other

Manufacturer	Model	Design	Mounts	Year
Leica	35mm f/3.5 Elmar	Tessar	M39	1931
Zeiss	35mm f/3.5 Herar	Unique	Contax	1939
Nikon	35mm f/3.5 W-Nikkor	Tessar	Nikon S / M39	1948

From the late 1940s through the 1950s, Nikon produced three lenses in the 35mm focal length with three different designs: (1) the 1948 35mm f/3.5 (Tessar); (2) the 1951 35mm f/2.5 (symmetrical); and (3) the 1956 35mm f/1.8 (modified Xenotar). While it is not clear to what extant that Nikon engineers had studied the existing Zeiss and Leica designs, it can probably be assumed that the company was familiar with these German templates and continued to significantly improve them.

While the 35mm f/3.5 W-Nikkor was not a particularly impressive lens (although quite competent), the 35mm f/2.5 certainly was and remains so. Faster than the pre-war Zeiss Orthometar, the existing post-war Leica f/3.5 Summaron, and West German Zeiss f/2.8 Biogon, with no focus shift, and with better lens coatings than all three, the f/2.5 was mostly likely until the introduction of the Leica f/2.8 Summaron, the best overall rangefinder lens in the 35mm focal length that was actually widely available.

Just a few years later, Nikon would go on to best its f/2.5. In September 1956, Nikon introduced the world’s fastest mass-produced lens in the 35mm focal length: the W-Nikkor 35mm f/1.8. Produced primarily in Nikon rangefinder mount until the mid-1960s (@ 7,000 in total), with a smaller number made in Leica screw mount (@ 1,500), over 60 years later the 35mm f/1.8 still remains one of the most sought-after 35mm rangefinder lenses. In 2005. Nikon re-popped the 35mm f/1.8 in Nikon rangefinder mount in connection with its Nikon SP re-issue.

One could hazard an educated guess most immediate ancestor to the W-Nikkor was the East German Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biometar. However whether that would be true is unclear as Zeiss Jena also attempted to use the Biometar design to replace the Tessar lenses in then-current Rolleiflexes. In any event, Nikon took a different approach with the 35mm f/1.8 by significantly modifying the Biometar template to add a two-element cemented group at the rear and adding Lathanum glass. The resulting lens was seven elements in five groups instead of five elements in four groups. The addition of the rear cemented group was able to improve spherical aberrations, chromatic aberrations, and coma endemic in wide angle lenses.

The success of the 35mm f/1.8 was not long-lived. In 1959, Nikon introduced its “F” SLR; and, within a decade, high-end rangefinder cameras quickly disappeared. Nikon went in different directions for its subsequent 35mm SLR lenses, using conventional retrofocal designs for its 1960s 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8.

Nikon’s interesting modified Xenotar design seemed destined to be lost to camera history. Leica continued to use, and possibly perfect, its mostly-symmetrical 35s in the late 1950s and 1960s, with its excellent, but simple 35/2.8 Summaron and its more complicated 8-element 35mm f/2 Summicron. It would not be until 1961 that Leica would produce a rangefinder lens in the 35mm focal length faster than the W-Nikkor: the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux.

Fast forward to the 1990s. During this time, a growing and competitive segment in photography was the “premium” compact camera. Popular platforms in this new higher-end genre included the Contax T2, the Nikon 35ti, the Yashica T4, and the Leica Minilux. As many of you know, the used prices on these compacts have skyrocketed.

Not to be left behind, Konica’s entry into this market would be the 1993 Hexar AF. In the 1980s, Konica had produced some decently-competitive compact cameras, but none of them on the level as those noted above. The Hexar AF is probably still the most advanced point-and-shoot 35mm film camera ever made. For the Hexar AF lens, Konica chose not to utilize any of its prior f/2.8-3.5 Tessar-style lenses used in its famous C35 and 1980s point-and-shoots. Instead, Konica appears to have chosen the design of the 35/1.8. Konica was no newcomer to rangefinder lenses. In the 1950s, it had produced two outstanding lenses in Leica screw mount, a 50mm f/1.9 (an “Ultron” design during a period when most non-Leica 50s were Sonnar-types) and the now-famous and ungodly expensive 60mm f/1.2.

There are some differences between Konica’s design and the W-Nikkor. The second lens group does not appear to be cemented, and the front element of the rear lens group differs in orientation to the Nikkor. For a reason not expressly explained by the extant literature, Konica designers struggled with the spherical aberration and field curvature in its design. Without offering any unfounded speculation on why this was a problem, Konica decided to “undercorrect” for the spherical aberration. “Undercorrecting” for spherical aberration would exacerbate, inter alia, “focus shift” issues. To solve the problem of the resulting focus shift, the Hexar AF’s autofocus computer would change the focus point at a particular f-stop and distance to compensate. That is a pretty amazing feat — even 30 years later. Only in the most recent high-end cameras are we seeing computer-based compensation for focus shift.

In 1996, at the request of a large camera store in Japan, Konica replicated the 35mm f/2 lens from its Hexar AF in Leica screw mount thread (M39). In 2001, Konica made another run of 1,000 of these lenses — with a beautiful painted brass barrel body, a focusing tab, a click aperture ring in half stops, and multi-coated glass surfaces, superficially resembling Leica’s IV 35/2 Summicron. In this new production batch, Konica revived its iconic “UC” (“ultra-coating”) trademark used for its higher-end 1970s and 1980s SLR lenses. When Konica introduced its M-Hexanon 35mm f/2 for its Hexar RF camera series in the early 2000s, it was of a completely different, yet more conventional, design.

Specifications

	35mm f/1.8 W-Nikkor	35mm f/2 UC-Hexanon
Year Introduced	1956	2001
Lens Mount	Nikon S & M39	M39
Number Produced	@ 7,000 (Nikon RF)	@ 1,000
Optical Design	7 elements, 5 groups	7 elements, 6 groups
Aperture	f/1.8 to f/22 (Full Clicks)	f/2 to f/16 (Half Clicks)
Aperture Blades	9	10
Minimum Focus	0.9m	0.9m
Filter Size	43mm x 0.50m	43mm x 0.75m
Weight	160g	132g

Some Comparisons

A burning question for me has always been whether Konica’s take actually improves upon the Nikon design. It must be remembered that Konica designed the lens for use in an advanced point-and-shoot and did not originally design the UC Hexanon as an interchangeable rangefinder lens.

From a physical and ergonomic perspective, both lenses are quite stunning. The W-Nikkor has weight and substance, has an intuitive scalloped focusing ring, and an aperture ring that is easy to see. If you have never used a Nikon RF lens, you may be surprised that as you focus the lens, the entire barrel moves, along with the aperture selection ring. The UC Hexanon’s black-painted brass barrel, click-aperture function, and focusing tab make it feel and operate more like a modern Leica M-mount lens.

Because we cannot look at these two lenses in a vacuum without a point of reference, for the f/2 and f/2.5 shots, we are going to throw a few others lenses into the mix: the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar II (2004), the Konica 35mm f/2 AR Hexanon, and the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikon lens. We are not going to test all five against each other at all apertures because you can assume as the aperture stops down, performance will only get better from wide open.

We are going to use a Nikon Z6 in aperture priority mode ith all automatic corrections turned off and then with color removed (as the subject matter is not color). Remember that although mirrorless is a pretty good way of assessing the raw performance of lenses, four of the five lenses were designed for film use, and the AF-S lens was designed for digital SLRs (but also works on film cameras, obviously). Click on the images below to see them at a larger size (4500 pixels).

f/2

f/2.5

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

Outdoor Shots

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

Inside Shots at Minimum Focusing Distance

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

So what are we seeing here?

At f/2.5, the modern lenses — the AF-S Nikkor and the VC are clearly overall outperforming both the UC Hexanon and the W-Nikkor. The modern lenses have sharper corners and less distortion. Thus, it is probably safe to say that higher-end modern 35mm primes have eclipsed both of these older lenses.

Center Sharpness

On a 24 megapixel sensor, the UC Hexanon and the W-Nikkor have virtually indistinguishable center sharpness. Both perform very well. The flaring of the W-Nikkor gives the UC Hexanon a slight edge.

Distortion

There is no competition here. The W-Nikkor has much better distortion control than the UC Hexanon — very impressive for the 1950s and on par with the famous 35/2.8 Leica Summaron. The W-Nikkor controls distortion throughout the entire aperture range, maybe getting a tiny bit better by f/11. The UC Hexanon’s distortion only slightly, almost imperceptibly improves by f/11.

Vignetting

At f/2, both lenses have noticeable light fall-off. The UC Hexanon is slightly better, but not by much. By f/2.8, the light fall-off in real world situations is essentially gone with both lenses. As the lenses are stopped down, vignetting disappears.

Warmth

The W-Nikkor renders a warmer image than the UC Hexanon. I would guess that it may be attributable to the aging Lanthanum element.

Flaring

Flaring because of a primitive 1950s lens coating is the W-Nikkor’s main weakness. It is noticeable at every aperture, getting better as the lens is stopped down. Without the flaring, the W-Nikkor would be a 100% better lens. On the other hand, the UC Hexanon has very little flaring at any aperture. The UC’s modern lens multicoatings certainly allow the lens to punch above its weight.

Corner Performance

The UC Hexanon is better in the corners at every aperture. At larger apertures, the W-Nikkor seems to have some “smearing” in the corners that does not seem attributable to a focus shift. Both lenses improve as they are stopped down, but the W-Nikkor never catches up with the UC Hexanon

Stopped Down Performance

Both lenses get markedly better stopped down. By f/2.8, both lenses are hitting their stride. The W-Nikkor starts providing “all-around” good results at f/4 and smaller. By f/8-11, both lenses are at their peaks. The UC Hexanon’s MTFs are off the charts.

With both lenses, I would reserve f/2-2.8 for closer, centered objects were you are looking to isolate the subject. However, the minimum focusing distance for both lenses being only 0.9m, they are not particularly ideal for portrait-y types of shots. For general use, I would stick to f/5.6-11 for both lenses.

Focus Shift

Focus shift is a phenomenon where the focus point of a lens changes as the aperture stops down. This effect plagues most lenses, both SLR and rangefinder. In the age of film, most people probably never noticed it — the shift was calculated to be in the range of the depth of field of focus at a given aperture. For SLRs, when you focus a lens, you are actually seeing the focal plane at the lens’ widest aperture, which then stops down automatically when you click the shutter. If you are focusing at f/1.8, and then the lens instantly stops down to your desired f/8 aperture, the actual focus point will shift slightly. For rangefinders, your lens will usually be calibrated to line up with the rangefinder at a certain aperture (most will be wide open or close to that). When you stop down, what the rangefinder patch is telling you is no longer the actual focus point. Konica engineers were aware of its focus shift and programmed the autofocus of the Hexar AF accordingly. Unfortunately, the same automatic correction is not possible on a rangefinder lenses.

The UC Hexanon and W-Nikkor both exhibit similar focus shift. If you focus a shot at f/2 with both, and then change to f/8 without changing the focus, you will find that at f/8, the lenses “front focus” — that is to say that at f/8, the lenses think the subject is closer than the lens thinks it is at f/2. While the shift at f/8 is at the far edge of the depth of field for both lenses, remember the depth of field is only about useable focus and even on film it does not mean that “everything” is in perfect focus from X to Y distance. Despite the depth of field, you still want your shots to be as accurately-focused as possible.

Conclusions

The W-Nikkor and the UC Hexanon are both remarkable lenses. Even now, over 60 years later, the W-Nikkor remains competitive. The downsides of the W-Nikkor include noticeable corner light fall-off wide open, just decent corner performance at smaller apertures, and visible flaring that gets better as the lens stops down (due to lack of modern lens coatings). The minimum focus of only 0.9m, the focus shift, the obsolete filter thread size, and the fact that the S-Mount version of the lens cannot be used on Leica rangefinders also are some other downsides. However, the W-Nikkor’s distortion control and center sharpness remain quite remarkabley. At f/2.8 and smaller, the W-Nikkor produces overall lovely results.

For an afterthought lens based on an optic from a point-and-shoot camera, the UC Hexanon is surprisingly good. While its distortion is very noticeable (obviously can be fixed in post and many modern 35mm lenses also demonstrate the exact same distortion), its minimum focusing distance is not class competitive, and it also has a focus shift issue, it still beats out the W-Nikkor at every aperture. As its MTFs demonstrate, the UC Hexanon is an incredibly sharp lens in the center while retaining very competitive corner performance. While Konica engineers obviously did a good job improving upon and modernizing the W-Nikkor’s design, especially by multi-coating all glass surfaces, the distortion issue is a head-scratcher.

At the end of the day, if you enjoy shooting the 35mm focal length, both of these modified Xenotar lenses will perform nicely. And both will always remain unique in the history of 35mm rangefinder photography.

Call me crazy, but I prefer 50mm lenses to be good at everything. A modern 50mm lens should produce exceptional shots at all apertures. Today, this is the case. But it was not always the case.

As an initial matter, I really do not understand the hoopla about Soviet lenses. So many internet reviews declaring X, Y, or Z Soviet lens the “King of _____.” I remain skeptical of these claims. In no way do any mass-produced Soviet 35mm lenses come close to being among the best overall optics of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s. Constantly reminding people that our Helios 44-2, for example, is a “Zeiss Biotar” copy does not somehow improve its performance. The “Biotar” represented a pre-war attempt by Zeiss to create a fast, workable, high-performance modified Double Gauss design (as opposed to the Zeiss Sonnars that became the gold standard in 50mms and short telephotos from the 1930s until the mid-1950s). In 1953, with the help of some rare earth elements, Leica finally produced a decent Double Gauss concept in its Version 1 50/2 Summicron. From that point onwards, the modified Double Gauss design for 50mm lenses has reigned supreme. In the West, we generally call the design “Planar” (West German) and not “Biotar” (East German / Soviet bloc).

Originally a cinema camera lens developed by Zeiss in the late 1930s, Zeiss Jena (East Germany) continued to produce its 58mm f/2 “Biotar” in various manual and semi-automatic versions for M42-mount Contax and Praktica SLRs until about 1960. (Check the links here for some nice write ups on the original Zeiss Jena lens). Starting in 1958, the Soviets began produce the “Helios 44” which was a Biotar derivative but made in Zenit’s then-proprietary bayonet mount as well as in M39 (not compatible with Leica, however). The Soviets did not do much to improve upon the original Zeiss design until they started multi-coating the optics years later.

The mid-1960s Helios 44-2 shares the same design as the prior 44 but was made only in M42 mount for the new generation of Soviet Zenit SLR cameras — the “E” and the “B.” Our example appears to have produced in 1982 by the Valdai Optical-Mechanical Factory. It appears that 44-2s were produced until the end of the 1980s. By the early 1970s, the Soviets were producing another version of the Helios called the “44M” — a lens that has standard automatic aperture operation — for the “Zenit EM” series. The Soviets continued to make different versions of the “44M” for decades. Reportedly, the last series (the 44M-7s) are the best performers.

Specifications

Lens Design: 6 elements in 4 groups
Filter Size: 49mm
Weight: 230 grams
Minimum Focus: 0.5 meters
Lens Mount: M42

Operation

The 44-2 is designed for “stop down” mode. Thus, you have to open the lens to maximum aperture to focus effectively, and then stop the lens down to your actual desired aperture on your own by rotating a ring at the front of the lens. A separate click-ring at the front of the lens allows you to select the maximum aperture, allowing you to move a separate ring to actually select the aperture within the chosen range. For instance, you can choose a minimum aperture of f/5.6, which permits you ultimately to chose any aperture at f/5.6 or wider, but not smaller. Most older M42 camera bodies operate this way. It really slows down the process. By contrast, the 44M series operate in normal aperture priority mode with the appropriate compatible M42 camera body.

Performance

For the film shots, we used our shutter-priority Konica FC-1 with the appropriate M42 to AR adapter. Konica AR bodies are some of the only film camera platforms that can natively use M42 lenses from minimum distance to infinity. The ability to meter M42 lenses in stop down mode is a big plus. On digital, we used a Nikon Z6 with a Konica AR adapter with all automatic corrections turned off.

The Helios 44-2 has a distinctly “warm” look through an SLR viewfinder. This is probably due to the lens coating used.

Digital Examples

To put the lens of the Helios 44-2 in perspective, we will compare it head-to-head with a contemporary — the 1962 non-Ai Nikkor 50/1.4 lens. The Nikkor is considered to be one of the better 50mm SLR lenses of the early to mid 1960s and seems to be a good comparator to determine whether the 44-2 can compete as an “all-around” 50mm lens. We are using a reproduction of the “Eighth Plan of Paris” (the City as it stood in 1705) as a target.

Helios 44-2 at f/2

As you can see, center sharpness looks pretty good and pretty much maxes out the 24 megapixel sensor. However, the corners quickly fall apart in terms of contrast and resolution. The corners are very bad compared to any modern lens. It also appears to my eyes to demonstrate slight pincushion distortion.

Nikon 50/1.4-S.C. at f/2

At f/2, the Nikon definitely demonstrates some barrel distortion. It actually appears to have lower contrast in the center than the Helios. However, despite the barrel distortion, the corners below the Helios away in terms of resolution, contrast, and light fall-off.

Helios 44-2 at f/2.8

Much better at f/2.8. The center resolution and contrast is slightly higher. The corner light fall off is becoming better controlled. The corner resolution has improved but still very noticeable.

Nikon 50/1.4 at f/2.8

The lenses appear to be neck-and-neck in the center at f/2.8. Remember, however, that the Helios is a longer lens so the Nikon is focusing from further away. We still see some barrel distortion from the Nikon. The Nikon corners again are far, far better resolved than the Helios.

Helios 44-2 at f/4

At f/4, we are seeing a slight improvement all over over f/2.8, but not as dramatic as between f/2 and f/2.8.

Nikon 50/1.4 at f/4

At f/4 and smaller, it is game over. The Nikon has solved most of its distortion issues and is sharp across the entire frame. I would say that on a 24 megapixel sensor, the center is pretty much indistinguishable between the two lenses. However, the Nikon is sharper across the frame at all apertures with much less light fall-off. We will focus the rest of this just on the Helios.

Helios 44-2 at f/5.6

At f/5.6, the Helios 44-2 is getting far better in the corners and with less light falloff. We are still seeing incremental detail and contrast improvement in the center as well.

Helios 44-2 at f/8

At f/8, we are approaching maximum performance for the lens. The corners are much, much improved. However, the extreme corners still show some fall-off. There is no perceptible improvement in the center over f/5.6.

Helios 44-2 at f/11

At f/11, the Helios 44-2 is at its best frame-wide — pretty much maxing out the visible resolution of the Z6. No more traces of light falloff and the entire view is in focus.

Film

The 44-2 is a more than capable “standard” lens on film at normal apertures. There is nothing truly outstanding about its performance but, like most standard SLR lenses, it produces nice images. I find the 58mm focal length a bit too “long” for general photography, though. Here are a few examples taken on Ilford XP2.

Conclusion

What is mildly impressive about the 44-2 is its center sharpness wide-open — far better than the infamous Sonnar-derived 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 — and is virtually indistinguishable on a 24 megapixel sensor from the Nikkor. Remember that wide-open, the 44-2 only excels at “center sharpness” — so if you like to shoot your close-up shots off-center, then whomp whomp. Although the sharpness out towards the edges gets better and better stopped down, it never quite achieves the performance of even a first-generation Japanese-made SLR lens like the Nikkor. Yes, it does have an interesting out-of-focus effect in certain shots and certain distances wide-open, but it is not an effect that occurs in commonplace photos.

58mm is also not exactly a general-purpose focal length. The stop down operation can really slow you down — even on a metered camera.

M42 is an obsolete lens mount today. On film, the 44-2 can only really be used on M42 cameras produced long ago primarily by Praktica (East German), Zenit (Soviet), and Pentax (Japanese). You can certainly use M42 lenses on Konica bodies with the right adapter — but Konica lenses, especially its 50mms, are so much better than the 44-2 or probably any other M42 50mm lens. All other adapters (Canon, Nikon, etc.) will not provide a full range of focus unless you buy one with an auxiliary glass element (which will degrade image quality). The 44-2 lens will mount and operate fine on any mirrorless camera.

For digital photography and digital video, the 44-2 has its fans.

Because the Soviets mass-manufactured camera equipment and exported much of it around the world, a draw may be that Helios 44-2s are cheap and easy to find. Getting a good one might be a crapshoot, though. If I were to do this all over again, I would have gone for the most modern, multicoated version of the 44 (the 44-7 or whatever) with automatic diaphragm operation. At the end of the day, the Helios 44-2 can be considered a “one-trick” pony — when shot wide-open, it produces a different kind of effect in very limited circumstances. Otherwise, just get the 50 that was designed for your camera.