M-Rokkor 40/2 CLE and M-hexanon 50/2

[aleksanderpolo]

Anyone have used them both? (I think Andy does?) I want to know how they compare in terms of bokeh, contrast, sharpness at f2, resistance to flare, minimal focus distance, etc. Already gone through the flickr but it's kinda hard to compare pictures taken by different people...

Many thanks.

[kds315*]

The M-Rolkkor is a very neat lens, tack sharp and contrasty but I cannot say anything about the Hexanon as I never owned it. I used it on my RD-1 digital rangefinder (which now makes Andy happy).

[fish4570]

Check on rangefinderforum.com. Several Hexanon and Rokkor CLE fans are there ...

[aleksanderpolo]

Thanks Klaus.

Paul, I did. But can't find any direct comparison yet on either the CLE or Konica board...

[F16SUNSHINE]

Well these two are favorites for me.
I would sum like this although I'm far from expert.

Hexanon
Sharper at f2 with medium/high contrast and absolutely the best flare resistance ever.
I keep the Hex M 2/50 over the latest version Summicron 2/50, Zeiss Planar 2/50 and, CV 1.5/50.
It is a close call in terms of IQ with those others but, The resistance to flare and build design and quality has it for me. I love the built in hood.

The Rokkor CLE lens is actually my favorite lens for the M8. It does not have the sharpness, resolving, or flare control of the Hex at Wide open.
It is great wide open though and has the most gentle Bokeh of DG lenses I have tried.
The rendering is drawing like rather than Zeissy 3D as the Hex 2/50. Not that the CLE is a slouch on 3D it is not. It is just not as aggressive as the Hex or Zeiss Biogon 2/35 or Planar 2/50 for example.
I love it for B+W as well as color although it really shines for B+W.

Hope that helps. Here are a few samples from the Rokkor. Although all have some PP to prepare them for Flikr Compression.
I have some samples here somewhere of the Hex please search them. The rest are not for public view or on my HD which is not here ATM.
I think you should try them both

Rokkor on RD1 ISO 800 WO


Rokkor/RD1 ISO 400 WO


Rokkor/RD1 f4 ISO 800


Rokkor/RD1 f4 ISO 400

[aleksanderpolo]

Hi Andy,

Thanks a lot. Exactly what I want to know.

[bawang]

In the short period I have the Rokkor CLE, I will have to say Andy is 100% right. I had to return mine due to back focusing issue.

Have you considered the Nokton 1.4/40? I disagree with many of the reviews on the web saying its bokeh is harsh and whatnot. My direct comparison between the Rokkor and Nokton says otherwise. The Nokton has subjectively more beautiful bokeh to my eyes than the Rokkor, i.e. creamier. I use an MC version. In terms of resolution and color, I would say the Nokton lies between the Rokkor and others (from what I see over at Flickr). More ummph on the color than the Rokkor. If BW is you game, I would lean more to the Rokkor though. One drawback I see with the Nokton is at WO, it's a bit soft. But that is also it's advantage....a full stop faster when needed.

Sorry to take you off track.

eKBZ.

[aleksanderpolo]

Hi eKBZ,

I am quite surprised by your experience. I have the Nokton 35/1.4 MC, which is supposed to have better bokeh than 40/1.4 according to many? But I found its bokeh, especially front bokeh, to be not very smooth from F1.4-2.8. That's the primary reason I am looking for another lens to be used at F2. I wonder how I should reconcile your experience with Andy's description...

[bawang]

Simple. Go with Andy's opinion as I believe he is more experienced than I ever am in this respect. I think Andy might have the Nokton at one point or another. And I always respect his photographic opinions here and elsewhere.

There is also the sample variation thingy. The 40/1.4 that I have is the same exact unit that was use by Basu in his comparative review of the Nokton and Cron 40 http://decisivemomentum.blogspot.com/2008/04/leica-40mm-summicron-c-vs-cv-40mm.html I bought that user copy when he found a new unit.

I believe when comparing bokeh, one needs to replicate in the same condition. In addition, even the top Leica 'bokeh king' can produce ugly bokeh under some difficult condition.

If this can help you, I would like to get a Rokkor back as there are qualities it has that I cannot get from the Nokton. Don't ask me to describe it, I can't except there is certain 'roundedness' in the Rokkor that appeals to me.

[bawang]

I reread my posts and I neglected to say that I was referring to bokeh of Nokton taken at f2 and above. At f1.4, I find it's bokeh less pleasing to a point of some harshness too especially when there's harsh bright light source in the background.

[estudleon]

The rokkor M had a different coat that the summicron M 2/40. I used both and the resistance to flare and contrast were better in the summ 2/40. A lot of articles said that both were the same lens, but not the two copies that I had.
And if I don't remember in the wrong way, the summicron was a bit cold colors.

[bawang]

Contary to what I was told by a friend in town who uses Cron 2/40 on his M9. He loves the cron so much but advises me to go for the Rokkor if I am getting one. He calls his a flare dog and glows like nothing else. But I ended up with a bargain Nokton instead.

[estudleon]

[bawang]

Thanks for the clarification estudleon. I appreciate that.