Using the Konica 21 to 35 on the M (typ 240)

[George Furst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased this lens at my favorite Camera store in Seoul 우리사 (UriRiSa) Camera. It works very well with the M (240) using live view. No issues with the frame lines and blockage of the rangefinder. I did compare it wth the 21 Super Elmar and the 35 Summilux FLE. It compares very well with both and handles like a dream. I was also impressed with the build quality and the way Konica color coded the to focal lengths on the lens outer barrel. Also it must have internal focusing as I see no change in the length of the lens as I focus. Too bad so few were made, they say 800. I spent three months trying to find one at a reasonable price (that is under $2000). I do not regret the purchase of it at all. I wonder if Solms, and soon Wetzler, will start manufacturing variable focal length lens for the M now that it has a CMOS detector. I do not own the Leica 28 35 and 50 so I cannot compare it with that lens. It does appear to be shorter and thiner but the lens speed is about the same at f3.4 at 21 and f4.0 at 35, so no advantage there. From my experience I highly recommend this lens for the newest M.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ario Arioldi]

Leica was manufacturing the MATE 28-35-50 and is still producing the WATE 16-18-21.

[AlanJW]

Leica has not ignored this, but the choices are limited. Both of the Tri-Elmars (16-18-21 and 28-25-50) work just fine on M(240). The WATE needs live view or EVF for proper framing, while the MATE does not -- the framelines change when the focal length is changed. I use both when traveling as it significantly lightens up the lens carrying burden. The limitation to f/4 is less of an issue with the M(240) as higher ISOs are usable. For the travel I do, f/4 has not been an issue. If you want very limiuted depth of field for your composition, then wider apertures are obviously necessary. I do also carry a 35mm Summilux for that purpose.

 

The 28-35-50 is no longer made as I understand the rare earth glass necessary is no longer available. These lenses have gotten quite expensive used, especially v.2. I know this from painful experience, having sold one only to regret it and buy another.

 

From a technical standpoint there is no reason Leica could not produce a true zoom lens specifically for the M with EVF, such as a 35-70 or 28-90. But I don't think they will. Nor do I think they will make any more Tri Elmars other than the WATE. The R zooms are usable with an adapter and EVF.

[Dannybuoy]

Konica made some great lenses. I got an M-Hexanon 28mm for a bargain price on eBay. A gamble but it paid off. Very sharp, excellent colours and well made. I'm glad they seem to be pretty unpopular and prices low. Won an auction on eBay for a 90mm 2.8 yesterday for £330. Seems like a great price for a good as new copy. Red Dot Cameras have one on sale for £500 at the moment. Big grins all round.

[dante]

I bought one of the 21-35mm M-Hexanons for my M8 a while back (to use alongside a 28-35-50). Suffice it to say that the M8 and the Tri-Elmar are gone, but the 21-35mm has gone on to a new career with my M240.

 

The Tri-Elmar, by comparison, was not as acutely sharp, did not have a very useful focal length range (at least for my travel use), and seemed too mechanically complicated to work smoothly (and this was after a full overhaul by Leica).

 

The only drawbacks to the 21-35mm that I can identify are:

 

1. The hood pin at the 6-o-clock position is somewhat inconvenient (especially since the lens has so little flare you don't really need the hood).

 

2. The variable aperture (f/3.4-4) and dual focusing scales can be a bit confusing if you are in a high-pressure situation. The same is true of Tri-Elmars.

 

3. For coding purposes, the bayonet triggers 35mm, which is not the 28mm that Leica wants to auto-code as a 21mm lens (of course, if it auto-coded as a 21mm, then you would have the issue of auto-coding as a 35mm). That said, the M 240 has manual lens coding available. The first 21/2.8 setting seems to be fine.

 

4. It has gotten expensive as hell. Prior to the M8, you could get one for $800. Now, they seem to run for $2,000-2,500.

 

Dante

[g2van]

Does the Dual 21-35 have any issues with red color shifts on the M240?

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the Dual 21-35 have any issues with red color shifts on the M240?

 

Not that I can detect. The corners will vignette wide-open at 21mm, but the color is always consistently within 1.5% on all channels (shooting a white surface). That said, you can get corner color shifts if you code the lens as the first 21/2.8 possibility on the menu. Lesson? Don't code.

 

Dante

[dante]

Konica made some great lenses. I got an M-Hexanon 28mm for a bargain price on eBay. A gamble but it paid off. Very sharp, excellent colours and well made. I'm glad they seem to be pretty unpopular and prices low. Won an auction on eBay for a 90mm 2.8 yesterday for £330. Seems like a great price for a good as new copy. Red Dot Cameras have one on sale for £500 at the moment. Big grins all round.

 

The 90mm M-Hexanon is a very sharp lens when focused properly and at least matches the resolution of the sensor (it will moire). That said, a 90mm lens is quite tough to focus to pixel-peaking accuracy using the optical finder on an M.* The Hexanon can be doubly so with its very short focusing throw (<1/3 turn). For critical work with a 90mm (under 2m and wider than f/4), you would be best advised to get an EVF.

 

Dante

 

*And this is not solely my experience; it's been in the literature quite a while that the M's baselength is marginal for 90mm lenses and that SLRs take the lead in focusing accuracy at 90mm and up.

[g2van]

Not that I can detect. The corners will vignette wide-open at 21mm, but the color is always consistently within 1.5% on all channels (shooting a white surface). That said, you can get corner color shifts if you code the lens as the first 21/2.8 possibility on the menu. Lesson? Don't code.

 

Dante

 

Thanks for the input and advice. Based on what you say, I'm quite sure I won't be able to see any unruly red edges. You seem to like the Dual alot and I'm attracted to it cos it's a great travel kit with 21 and 35 framelines. I was first tempted to get a 21 (Avenon, Elmarit, ZM) but now I'm leaning towards the Dual more. If you feel like adding any more advice (other than what you've said in other places, which I've read), that would be great!

[dante]

Thanks for the input and advice. Based on what you say, I'm quite sure I won't be able to see any unruly red edges. You seem to like the Dual alot and I'm attracted to it cos it's a great travel kit with 21 and 35 framelines. I was first tempted to get a 21 (Avenon, Elmarit, ZM) but now I'm leaning towards the Dual more. If you feel like adding any more advice (other than what you've said in other places, which I've read), that would be great!

 

I think that if there is any measurable shift, it might be a point of blue-green - but as stated, it's tiny and hard to distinguish from the vignetting. If you do hit nasty edges, there is CornerFix. I did my tests wide open at about 1.5m and at infinity (on a sky).

 

One thing to note is that with the M8, it was common to recollimate Konica (and a lot of older Leica) lenses to hit infinity properly. Uniformly (and this went as much for my 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron as my M-Hexanons), it was 0.05mm (2/1000") of a difference. The M9 seems less sensitive to that issue, which makes me think the focus plane in the camera was set back very slightly. I haven't noted any ill effects with the M240.

 

I should have a new Kobalux 21mm within a week or two, at which point I should be able to report on that (my original one, which worked a charm with the M8, got destroyed a few years ago).

 

Dante

[g2van]

 

I should have a new Kobalux 21mm within a week or two, at which point I should be able to report on that (my original one, which worked a charm with the M8, got destroyed a few years ago).

 

Dante

 

Well I look forward to your experience on the Kobalux 21, but I fear reading it for the obvious reasons. Just as I a trying to pry myself from the Konica UC 35/2 -- this is making things tough for me as I just got the 35 cron V3 ....

[Dannybuoy]

The 90mm M-Hexanon is a very sharp lens when focused properly and at least matches the resolution of the sensor (it will moire). That said, a 90mm lens is quite tough to focus to pixel-peaking accuracy using the optical finder on an M.* The Hexanon can be doubly so with its very short focusing throw (<1/3 turn). For critical work with a 90mm (under 2m and wider than f/4), you would be best advised to get an EVF.

 

Dante

 

*And this is not solely my experience; it's been in the literature quite a while that the M's baselength is marginal for 90mm lenses and that SLRs take the lead in focusing accuracy at 90mm and up.

 

I used to own a Cron 90 but found it almost impossible to focus accurately, it had focus shift too. I'm using the EVF pretty much all the time with my M at the moment so that's why I feel confident enough to use a 90 again. Will be interesting trying to focus handheld when zoomed in 10x. Maybe lay off the coffee when I plan to use it. :-)

[George Furst]

Use on the Leica M (typ 204) vs the Vario-Elmar 21-35. This is not a zoom lens as it has two distinct focal lengths, 21 and 35, nothing in between focuses with a sharp image. This is the reason it is called a 'Duel Lens' lens by Minolta. I have compared it to the Leica Vario-R 21-35 and it does very well optically. I do not have the tri-Elmar 28-35-50 so I cannot comment on that for a comparison but I understand that it is an excellent performer too and is a little longer and heavier at 340 grams. The Leica Vario-R is a true zoom and therefore has an advantage in that you can take sharp pictures as all focal lengths, but I have not found that to be a problem. The advantage of the Konica Hexanon over the Leica Vario-R is its size and ability to rangefinder focus. It does come with a 21mm viewfinder with 35 line corners built in and this viewfinder is brilliant. I did note slight barrel distortion here but not enough to disturb one. I do not use the viewfinder as I am using this lens on my Leica M ( typ 240). It is a perfect lens for this camera. You can see exactly what you photograph and composition is much easier than through the rangefinder (35mm) or viewfinder (21mm). Using live view with focus check works great with this lens. Also you never shoot using the 21mm when you think you have the lens set at 35mm, a problem with the M9 or other non electronic viewfinder camera. I think as the mirrorless cameras become more prevalent this lens will really shine. Too bad that only 800 were produced. I also like it that I can rangefinder focus as this saves M battery life when you wish to take a quick photo as the lag time is much less when the live view shutter does not need to close down, open for the exposure and then close again.

 

Ease of use. I love the ease of use of this lens. The f stop ring (very close to the hood) feels different than the focus ring (close to the lens mount). Each has a distinct feel. Also the focus ring has a tab to guide you. There is another ring for the duel 21or 35 focal length settings (between the prior two) and it has more resistance and a grid pattern so you know which you are moving. Also the depth of fields are color coded for each focal length on the lens barrel. This is an ingenious way of communicating information. Comparing it with the Leica Vario-R 21 to 35, it is smaller, lighter, and of course does not require the R adapter M to use on the M line of Leica cameras. The Leica Vario-R lens cannot be rangefinder focused as there is no cam on the lens to do this as they were designed for SLR use. Further I find the Minolta because of its size and lower weight (295 grams vs 500 grams) is easier to use. You do not need to remove the sun shade on the Hexanon as it is built in and small enough to be left on the lens all the time but because of its size, you definitely need to remove it from the Vario-R lens. Also since there is no lens cap this is not in the way either. As for the optics, I find little difference. I have taken the same pictures with both lens at all f stops and both are very contrasty and sharp. The MTF diagrams of Erwin Puts and those found on the Minolta website (M-Hexanon镜头规格指标) indicate that the Leica lens has better all over resolution at both focal lengths but I cannot see the difference in practice, that is in my pictures taken during the day. Therefore although I own both lens, I prefer the Minolta Hexanon, and that from a confirmed Leica person. Also the Hexanon takes up much less space in my lens bag. I have read that there are back focus issues with the Minolta Hexanon lens but I can say that comparing the live view focusing with the rangefinder focusing on my M, they both agree at both focal lengths and f stops so I see no back focusing issues with the Hexanon lens I own. This issue may be confused as the Minolta M type camera had back focusing issues with Leica lens. I put this in as Erwin Puts mentioned it in his review of the lens and felt that it was a fatal flaw.

 

In conclusion, I like this lens very much. If you like the wide angle world, it is a perfect lens with the focal lengths that are the work horse of 35mm wide angle photography. It is relatively compact and light, has sharp optics, and is very easy to use. I prefer it to the Leica Vario-R lens as there is no lens cap to remove and lens shade to put on and. Also it is smaller, lighter and less expensive altough the price of the Hexanon is going up each year as people find what a fine lens it is. I use the code of the Elmarit 21mm f2.8 Asp lens on my Leica M (typ 240) camera and it seems to work well with lightroom.

[algrove]

@Dante

 

Keep in mind that even the Novoflex R adapter is now coded and as such brings up the list of R lenses for the 21-35 Vario.

[Son of Helm]

I recently purchased this lens at my favorite Camera store in Seoul 우리사 (UriRiSa) Camera. It works very well with the M (240) using live view. .....

 

Generally I Think one buy Leica houses in ordre to be able to use superb Leica glass, using cheap glass ón a Leica house is like fitting a Skoda engine into a Porsche

[jaapv]

At prices ranging from 2000 $ to 3000 $ I would hesitate to call the Hexanon cheap glass...

[menos I M6]

The 21-35 Hexanon Dual's weak point is it's distortion. When not corrected for either via in camera profile or in post processing, it has a rather heavy barrel distortion, which is stronger close up @ 21mm than at 35mm (which is why I stopped using in camera profiles for this lens, as a 21 Elmarit profile will clearly overcorrect the distortion @ 35mm).

The distortion is not of a complex character and can very easily be dealt with in post processing (by loosing some of the 21mm field of view, as of it's strength with critical shots).

 

For critical wide work where one needs all of the lenses angle, I would definitely use a 21SE instead.

 

Apart from this one characteristic, it definitely is a lens, that optically is on par with Leica's 21 Elmarit ASPH and other modern wide angle lenses.

It can be considered a very high performing lens optically with incredible detail and sharpness even into the corners, where you can in fact use the lens for critical shooting from wide open (a trait, usually connected mostly to "expensive Leica glass").

Stopping down will mainly add further contrast.

 

It's optical strengths is its very unique contrast characteristic, whereas it is not as deadly, overly contrasty, as some latest aspherical Leica designs (28/2.8 ASPH comes to mind), but it has a wonderful contrast range, which for me is the perfect starting point in post processing, especially with the M Mono, where it absolutely shines!

 

In regard of it's ergonomics and build quality (in part to the comment above):

 

I have worked on many rangefinder lenses myself, including some of latest Leica RF lenses.

The build quality, fit, finish, workmanship and detail solutions in construction of the 21-35 Dual in fact ECLIPSES some of Leica's greatest lenses.

I look at the inside of this lens as an marvel in dedication of the Konica engineers, to pay so much attention to detail with such a high degree of build quality.

 

The Dual is definitely considered a HALO product, not only by it's features, but especially by it's design and workmanship. You can consider it at a similar level of design, as a .95 Noctilux or Leica's very own complicated multi focal RF lenses.

 

The current market price of the Dual is my opinion a STEAL for the complexity and quality, it provides.

I am very happy, I have one of these, and although, I have several fine 21mm lenses (a 21 SE among them) I often use the Konica Dual instead.

 

The finder's housing is indeed made of plastic and therefore doesn't feel or look as nice as the Leica 21mm milled brass finder, but these two finders could not be more apart in optical quality. It is of the highest quality plastic though and has a velvety feel to it - it doesn't feel "cheap" but is a little contrast to the otherwise perfect material choice and build quality of the lens (one might think, that the choice of material is mainly aimed at a weight saving as of it's unusual large glass elements, rather than a cost saving choice).

 

The Konica finder offers a much larger view with better eye point and is brighter than Leica's most expensive single focal 21mm finder.

I mostly use the Frankenfinder with this lens, as it offers a wider field of view outside the 21mm frame and the perfect bubble level for critical shots.

If packing small, the 21mm Leica finder is the choice, but for best 21mm view of quickly framed action shots, nothing beats the Konica finder.

 

One more comment regarding it's optical qualities - it is absolutely amazing, how flare free this lens is, considering, that I mostly use it without it's lens hood and with a B&W clear MRC filter permanently attached as of it's rarity.

I added a few shots, where most of any lens would flare or ghost - the Konica Dual does not!

 

Regarding the comment earlier about the potential difference in calibration between some Konica and Leica lenses, I can confirm that on some lenses a re-calibration is necessary.

In the case of my Dual, a distinct back focusing was very obvious, but was easily cured.

The lens focusses perfectly on spot now from close range to infinity at both focal lengths.

This is not something necessarily typical for Konica vs. Leica lenses, but a necessity for ALL rangefinder lenses, which might have been produced during their lifetime to different standards (there is definitely a need to adjust lenses "for digital" or form film use, which is now more pronounced with current high resolution digital sensors).

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

US bikes in Shanghai - Konica M-Hexar Dual 21-35 f3.4-4 by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

[airscrew]

Here is an example of dynamic range and amount of details Dual can produce with M8. Taken towards rising sun, handheld, 1/125, aperture not recorded (maybe 8), ISO 160. Distance to main subject about 200m, hill 500m and mountain 3km.

 

Regards,

Jouni

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M