AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I have been using my newly acquired Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35mm lens on my R-D1 and have decided that it is the perfect lens for this camera and right now I see no reason to ever take it off.
With the 1.5x crop factor, this lens results in a ~33mm and ~53mm lens on the R-D1. I put the VC 21mm VF for the R-D1 on the camera for the short focal length and use the camera's VF set at 35mm for the longer.
It's a terrific lens -- it took awhile to find a willing seller but it was totally worth it.
With the 1.5x crop factor, this lens results in a ~33mm and ~53mm lens on the R-D1. I put the VC 21mm VF for the R-D1 on the camera for the short focal length and use the camera's VF set at 35mm for the longer.
It's a terrific lens -- it took awhile to find a willing seller but it was totally worth it.
Steve Litt
Well-known
Sounds perfect.
I have hoped for some time that CV would make an affordable dual focal lenth lens.Ideally,for me,28mm/50mm to giving 42mm/75mm on my Rd1 and complimenting my 40mm cron.
Regards
Steve
I have hoped for some time that CV would make an affordable dual focal lenth lens.Ideally,for me,28mm/50mm to giving 42mm/75mm on my Rd1 and complimenting my 40mm cron.
Regards
Steve
Didier
"Deed"
Dave,
good you have fun with it. Personally, I couldn't. For me, these rangefinder mount dual- or tri-lenses are just slow, heavy and bulky pseudo zooms. I'd prefer a (D)SLR for that.
I'm a one-lens-at-a-time user, rarely carry two lenses, or even a bag. Like to have the camera on the chest, hidden by a jacket, or in a pocket. Some of the reasons why I use use RF gear are speed and compactness - something which these Dual/Tri lenses definitely do not offer. That's why I can easily pass on the ability to use several focal lengths at a time.
For daylight use, I'd prefer the 28/3.5 Color Skopar 10'000x over the Dual Hexanon. The Skopar beats the Hexanon in sharpness and contrast, with hands down. By night, any of my 1.4 (35mm, 40mm) or 1.2 lenses (50mm) would be preferred.
But if you like it, the better for you. Hope you'll post some pictures.
Didier
good you have fun with it. Personally, I couldn't. For me, these rangefinder mount dual- or tri-lenses are just slow, heavy and bulky pseudo zooms. I'd prefer a (D)SLR for that.
I'm a one-lens-at-a-time user, rarely carry two lenses, or even a bag. Like to have the camera on the chest, hidden by a jacket, or in a pocket. Some of the reasons why I use use RF gear are speed and compactness - something which these Dual/Tri lenses definitely do not offer. That's why I can easily pass on the ability to use several focal lengths at a time.
For daylight use, I'd prefer the 28/3.5 Color Skopar 10'000x over the Dual Hexanon. The Skopar beats the Hexanon in sharpness and contrast, with hands down. By night, any of my 1.4 (35mm, 40mm) or 1.2 lenses (50mm) would be preferred.
But if you like it, the better for you. Hope you'll post some pictures.
Didier
yoshimura
Member
Congratulations, Dave! My outfit is almost exactly like yours: my Dual Hexanon hardly leaves my R-D1s. Since I've been having it, I enjoyed it 100%. The 21 and 35 mm lengths are the perfect match for the Epson. My finder arrangement is a bit different though: I use the CV mini finder (28-35) which is permanently mounted on the body. The 28mm frame fits quite well for the 21mm length, and the camera's selector is on 28mm, which is good for the 35 (less inexact than the 35 mm frame). In fact, Didier, the Dual Hexanon lens is not so bulky, not much bulkier than the Zeiss 2.8/25 which I also use, and significantly less than the trielmar. I admit that the dual lens has shotcomings over a single focal lens, slower or bulkier, but you can use any lens when you need it of course (I also use the ZM 25 or the M Hexanon 2.8/28), but if you want a single lens for most purpose when you are travelling and don't want to bother with a heavy bag, the Dual is the answer. And the quality is there...
rvaubel
Well-known
The Dual Hexagon
The Dual Hexagon
The new tri-elmar hardly qualifies as a dual range lens, much less a tri range lens. And its to slow. If anyone wants to turn a Konica loose, I'm here
Rex
The Dual Hexagon
The new tri-elmar hardly qualifies as a dual range lens, much less a tri range lens. And its to slow. If anyone wants to turn a Konica loose, I'm here
Rex
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>I use the CV mini finder (28-35) which is permanently mounted on the body.
>The 28mm frame fits quite well for the 21mm length,
I also own this finder. I use the CV 21mm finder for the R-D1 (1.5x). But since the mini-finder is so much more compact, I'll try it tomorrow.
>and the camera's selector is on 28mm, which is good for the 35 (less inexact >than the 35 mm frame).
This surprises me. Since the lens has a 35mm setting logic tells me to use the 35mm setting on the camera. Can you explain this?
>The 28mm frame fits quite well for the 21mm length,
I also own this finder. I use the CV 21mm finder for the R-D1 (1.5x). But since the mini-finder is so much more compact, I'll try it tomorrow.
>and the camera's selector is on 28mm, which is good for the 35 (less inexact >than the 35 mm frame).
This surprises me. Since the lens has a 35mm setting logic tells me to use the 35mm setting on the camera. Can you explain this?
anaanda
Well-known
Right now I have a 50mm Summicron from the 1970's. Its just perfect for me although I would like to get a 28 and a 90. I think I prefer one focal length at a time. i shoot better this way.
yoshimura
Member
AusDLK said:
Yes, I found that the camera's frames are very conservative, ie show much less than what is actually captured on the sensor. I first thought that this was due to the fact that the 1.53 crop factor was not so rigid after all and that the actual FOV of wide lenses was on the R-D1 closer to their nominal (film) value than expected, and I posted a thread on this issue, but other members of the forum convinced me that this was an illusion due to the very narrow framing in the viewfinder. So if you compare the field covered by the internal 35mm frame with what you get on the image, you will see that the result is much wider. In the present case, it is (or seems to me) more faithfully reflected by the 28mm internal frame.
I am not 100% convinced that I was wrong in the first place, but I decided not to lose more time to useless comparisons as I got used to shooting the way I described earlier and to being quite happy with it, the crop factor beginning meaningless once you really use your camera. You just forget about it.
rvaubel
Well-known
AusDLK said:
The RD1's finder frames much tighter than what you get with the "correct" matching lens. I too had long philosophical discussions about the meaning of all this, but finally decided to believe my eyes and forget about what Epson was thinking. The up side of all this is that the "50mm ?" frame is useful for lenses out to 90mm focal length. Really. I kid you not.
The downside is you need to keep the 28/35mm minifinder on the camera at all times for your 21 thru 28mm lenses. Not actually a great hardship
With the minifinder permanetly mounted, you can always find a frameline appropriate for any lens from 21mm thru 90mm. It least, that the way I do it.
Rex
CDT
Chris
How many of these lenses were made? I've had no luck locating one.
Can I ask how much you paid for it?
Can I ask how much you paid for it?
iml
Well-known
rvaubel said:
Might depend on the lens. My CV 35/1.7 Ultron is pretty close to the 35mm framelines on my R-D1s, it gives a fractionally larger FOV than the framelines, but no more than I would expect.
Ian
akptc
Shoot first, think later
HU: dual M-Hexanon on ebay right now
HU: dual M-Hexanon on ebay right now
There is a dual M-Hexanon on ebay right now, item 150044855968. I came "this close" to buying it last night but just can't get over the relatively slow speeds. Will probably regret it forever...
HU: dual M-Hexanon on ebay right now
There is a dual M-Hexanon on ebay right now, item 150044855968. I came "this close" to buying it last night but just can't get over the relatively slow speeds. Will probably regret it forever...
yoshimura
Member
akptc said:
It'a s great lens, in spite of the speed which matters less since the ISO sensibility can be adjusted up to 1600 ISO. There were only 800 of these lenses made, it's rather difficult to find...
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>How many of these lenses were made? I've had no luck locating one.
It is my understanding that on the order of 900 of them were made.
>Can I ask how much you paid for it?
I posted a WTB listing here and on LUG and within a week or so a seller contacted me. The sale price was $900 for a complete kit -- lens, finder, shade, box, case. The whole 9-yards. All in like-new condition. Score!
The "slow" maximum f-stop is an absolute non-issue for me.
This is as perfect a lens for the R-D1 (or M8) as I will ever find to match my outdoor, street shooting style.
(Naturally, I adore the Tri-Elmar on my film cameras.)
It is my understanding that on the order of 900 of them were made.
>Can I ask how much you paid for it?
I posted a WTB listing here and on LUG and within a week or so a seller contacted me. The sale price was $900 for a complete kit -- lens, finder, shade, box, case. The whole 9-yards. All in like-new condition. Score!
The "slow" maximum f-stop is an absolute non-issue for me.
This is as perfect a lens for the R-D1 (or M8) as I will ever find to match my outdoor, street shooting style.
(Naturally, I adore the Tri-Elmar on my film cameras.)
CDT
Chris
How do you like it? I know it doesn't have a great reputation for sharpness, which doesn't bother me. I'm more interested in the contrast and overall "look" especially in B&W. I've found a lot of zoom lenses give pretty dreary results in black and white despite looking good in an MTF chart.
Thanks,
Chris