Konica M-Hexanon 21-35mm f/3.4-4.0 with Leica M9 anyone??

[Guest gamincurieux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi... has anyone used/is anyone using the Konica M-Hexanon 21-35mm f/3.4-4.0 with the Leica M9? I'm looking to read some opinions about its quality on the M9 (not the M8, thank you), also any practical advice with regards coding & general use that you might care to share. Many thanks!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[menos I M6]

I use mine on the M9 and it is a fabulous lens.

It excels it's contemporary Leica lenses in built quality and especially mechanical construction and is easily on par in image quality.

 

I am surprised, it still sells so low (about the cost of a Super Elmar 21).

 

I use mine, selected 21 Elmarit in the menu, which works fantastic for 21mm but overcorrects distortion, when set to 35mm.

If you are often switching between 21 and 35, you might want to use it uncoded.

 

I shoot only B&W though and can't comment on color issues.

I love especially it's combination of unique contrast signature and it's optical performance @ 21mm.

 

It's a fantastic lens!

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

[marknorton]

It's a pity Leica has lost interest in (or cannot produce at a sensible price) variable focal length lenses.

[menos I M6]

It's a pity Leica has lost interest in (or cannot produce at a sensible price) variable focal length lenses.

 

I too think, that it might be much more interesting in outcome for many Leica M shooters, to have Leica's engineers, to make a statement with a two focal length f3.4 or f4 lens, than gracing the Leica portfolio with humongous super fast lenses.

 

Think, what a Leica 21/50 f3.4 could do, optimized at resolution, light falloff and distortion.

 

I think, it doesn't fit anymore into Leica's philosophy of least compromise in image quality with modern optics - these multi focal length lenses are truly complicating things (which is why a two focal lens might be more reasonable, both in size/ weight and usability, read finder blockage), but who knows.

Maybe Leica has a plan to pair a new CMOS camera with zoom lenses without the complication of RF coupling and frame selection. :(

[Guest gamincurieux]

Yes, I can see where you're coming from with B&W

Anyone using it in color & switching from 21 to 35 a lot? I really wonder how to handle it re coding etc....

 

I use mine on the M9 and it is a fabulous lens.

It excels it's contemporary Leica lenses in built quality and especially mechanical construction and is easily on par in image quality.

 

I am surprised, it still sells so low (about the cost of a Super Elmar 21).

 

I use mine, selected 21 Elmarit in the menu, which works fantastic for 21mm but overcorrects distortion, when set to 35mm.

If you are often switching between 21 and 35, you might want to use it uncoded.

 

I shoot only B&W though and can't comment on color issues.

I love especially it's combination of unique contrast signature and it's optical performance @ 21mm.

 

It's a fantastic lens!

[howard_cummer]

I had John Millich mill the bayonet of my Hexar 21 - 35 and I use it on my M9 coded as the 24 Elmar.

That seems to be the best compromise. It is a very nice lens and draws very well on the M9.

There is no back focus problem either as was once touted for film cameras several years ago.

[Guest gamincurieux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard, a couple of questions please: Did you have John Millich mill the bayonet just for the black/white code spots/holes, or did you have him mill it to bring up 28mm viewfinder framelines as well? I ask about that because I know for example to make 21mm codes work the lens itself must bring up 28mm framelines when mounted, regardless of the coding markings - I don't know if that's the case for 24mm profiles to work. So, ok, that's coding taken care of for the wider end... what happens when you close down to 28mm or 35mm? As those focal lengths haven't been specifically 'coded for' are there any issues there with fringing or whatever else happens when a lens is not coded correctly or at all??

Also, dare I ask.... how much of the viewfinder is blocked? With 62mm filters I imagine a fair bit is...

 

I had John Millich mill the bayonet of my Hexar 21 - 35 and I use it on my M9 coded as the 24 Elmar.

That seems to be the best compromise. It is a very nice lens and draws very well on the M9.

There is no back focus problem either as was once touted for film cameras several years ago.

[menos I M6]

I had John Millich mill the bayonet of my Hexar 21 - 35 and I use it on my M9 coded as the 24 Elmar.

That seems to be the best compromise. It is a very nice lens and draws very well on the M9.

There is no back focus problem either as was once touted for film cameras several years ago.

 

Sounds like a good compromise, if you are regularly switching between focal lengths.

 

For me, selecting the 21 Elmarit for the wide end is a better compromise, as I use the lens possibly 99% as a 21mm and 1% as a quick 35mm.

 

I absolutely prefer any other 35mm, I have over the Hexanon 21-35, as I like to see as much of the frame, as possible, when using a 35mm lens, as I tend, to use a 35mm rather close.

 

The finder obstruction from the big hood around the large front element is indeed very heavy, which is why the lens doesn't work for me as a 35mm - I just ignore this focal length, but use it as an emergency setting, when switching to another lens would take too much time.

 

This way, the Hex Dual works perfectly, when on one body, while a 50 is on another body.

 

The Hex Dual doesn't have a 28mm intermediate setting, although one can shoot in between settings of course.

 

My sample of the 21-35 came factory sealed with distinct back focussing. It was a very easy and quick fix though and I am amazed by the performance of this lens @ 21mm.

I would say, it is very close to the Super-Elmar, when it comes to visible detail in a large print - the corners are amazing too !

[Guest gamincurieux]

Mm, ok, I can see why you only use 35mm when pushed to.... but when you do have to, how is it (considering it's not coded), any particular problems to mention??

[farnz]

Don't forget that at 21 mm on the M9 you'll probably want to use an external viewfinder because the M9's viewfinder doesn't go that wide. At 35 mm you'd either need to manually use the frame lines lever or an external viewfinder.

 

Pete.

[menos I M6]

Don't forget that at 21 mm on the M9 you'll probably want to use an external viewfinder because the M9's viewfinder doesn't go that wide. At 35 mm you'd either need to manually use the frame lines lever or an external viewfinder.

 

Pete.

 

No Pete, the lens mount of the Hexanon Dual 21-35 activates the 35mm frame lines.

The only issue with the 35mm setting on this lens is indeed finder obstruction.

 

Without measuring, just from comparing I remember the obstruction into the frame severe, as the Noctilux, which in return gives at least the whole right bottom quarter of the 35mm frame obstructed.

 

This doesn't work well with my use of the 35mm focal length, but I take it as an excellent emergency setting, when 21mm is clearly too wide.

 

Optically the 35mm setting is great.

 

Here is some MTF info on the lens itself for people, who care about this:

 

M-Hexanon镜头规格指标

[farnz]

No Pete, the lens mount of the Hexanon Dual 21-35 activates the 35mm frame lines. ...

Thanks, Dirk, I didn't know that.

 

Pete.

[menos I M6]

Thanks, Dirk, I didn't know that.

 

Pete.

 

 

In this regard, I think the Konica approach to multi focals really is ideal - just two focal lengths, calling the frame line for one and having the other wide enough, to make frame line detection unnecessary.

 

It also keeps size and weight in check and probably makes optical corrections on each focal lengths easier.

 

Leica really should consider at least one new lens in this regard - maybe a 21-50 f3.4.

It could be branded as the Super-Elmar-M 21-50 and would be sold in the 3000 EUR bracket.

 

Close focus @ 0.7m and a focus ring with focus tab.

No floating elements and super smooth, light focussing for fastest operation.

 

If finder obstruction @ 50mm is kept smaller, than with a Noctilux f1, it should be a fantastic user lens and I would pre order one, as soon, as Leica would announce it.

 

I would have a 35/1.4 on the main body and bring a long lens, just in case and wouldn't need anything else …

[Guest gamincurieux]

I should think it fine to use it at 28mm too, as the normal viewfinder is quasi-28mm all around

 

Anyway, by having it coded for any certain 21mm lens, can anyone finally tell me what it is like at 35mm.... how's the color/any issues???

 

 

In this regard, I think the Konica approach to multi focals really is ideal - just two focal lengths, calling the frame line for one and having the other wide enough, to make frame line detection unnecessary.

 

It also keeps size and weight in check and probably makes optical corrections on each focal lengths easier.

 

Leica really should consider at least one new lens in this regard - maybe a 21-50 f3.4.

It could be branded as the Super-Elmar-M 21-50 and would be sold in the 3000 EUR bracket.

 

Close focus @ 0.7m and a focus ring with focus tab.

No floating elements and super smooth, light focussing for fastest operation.

 

If finder obstruction @ 50mm is kept smaller, than with a Noctilux f1, it should be a fantastic user lens and I would pre order one, as soon, as Leica would announce it.

 

I would have a 35/1.4 on the main body and bring a long lens, just in case and wouldn't need anything else …

[Guest gamincurieux]

Anyone....... Bueller...... Bueller?

 

I should think it fine to use it at 28mm too, as the normal viewfinder is quasi-28mm all around

 

Anyway, by having it coded for any certain 21mm lens, can anyone finally tell me what it is like at 35mm.... how's the color/any issues???

[Guest gamincurieux]

Bump...

 

Anyone....... Bueller...... Bueller?

[Guest gamincurieux]

Considering that most people have this lens coded for any particular 21mm lens, could someone please finally tell me what it is like shooting it at 35mm (or even 28mm!).... how's the color/any issues???

 

I'd really appreciate knowing about this, please, as I'm considering getting one of these lenses

[jankap]

 

In this regard, I think the Konica approach to multi focals really is ideal - just two focal lengths, calling the frame line for one and having the other wide enough, to make frame line detection unnecessary.

 

It also keeps size and weight in check and probably makes optical corrections on each focal lengths easier.

 

If finder obstruction @ 50mm is kept smaller, than with a Noctilux f1, it should be a fantastic user lens and I would pre order one, as soon, as Leica would announce it.

 

I would have a 35/1.4 on the main body and bring a long lens, just in case and wouldn't need anything else …

 

With live view there is no finder obstruction. The finder is besides the selection of the outline of the picture the means to measure the distance.

 

The Fuji xyz combines finder and live view in the finder. Because the rangefinder lacks, it remains a point and shoot camera.

 

What if the rangefinder would be combined with the live view screen, say in a field in the screen?

The rangefinder would be fine for the shorter lenses, live view would excel for the longer lenses.

Jan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest gamincurieux]

Yes, thank you Jan.... but what I really want to know about is:

 

Considering that most people have this lens coded for any particular 21mm lens, could someone please finally tell me what it is like shooting it at 35mm (or even 28mm!).... how's the color/any issues???

 

I'd really appreciate knowing about this, please, as I'm considering getting one of these lenses

[Guest gamincurieux]

The Hex Dual doesn't have a 28mm intermediate setting, although one can shoot in between settings of course.

 

ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT???