21-35mm Dual Hexanon Initial Comments

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
1:47 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,862
I guess the first comment is not a comment, but a question - why were people wishy-washy about this lens?!

By way of introduction, this was Konica's last M-mount lens, and it's pretty clear, even from bad auto translations of the white paper on this lens, that it was designed to be a technological tour-de-force. Notably, it is very resistant to small-aperture diffraction at snapshot ranges: even at f/11, its MTH is shown to be (at 1.5m) in the high 90s for both the 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm targets.

In terms of its physical layout, the lens is not small, being about 57mm (2-1/4") long and having a 62mm front filter thread (the M8 camera will sit flat on its baseplate with this lens mounted). That said, it isn't really that much longer than a 21mm Elmarit ASPH and is shorter than the published size of the ZM 21/2.8 Biogon. The rear ring has a focusing tab; the center ring has a fairly wide grip, and the aperture ring in front is smaller and has different knurling. There are two aperture index marks: one for 21mm (orange) and one for 35mm (green). Likewise, there are dual depth of field markings (one set orange, one green). If you use a Leica Frankenfinder (the 16-28mm WATE finder), you can see the focal length and selected aperture through the finder.

The mechanics outdo even the other M-Hexanon lenses: smooth focusing with one finger and a very smooth click between 21mm and 35mm. The aperture clicking is not as pronounced as other M-Hexanons. Very nice. A bit nicer than a first generation Tri-Elmar. The only annoyance is the pin-registered hood (like the original 75mm Summilux and 50mm Noctilux).

In terms of optics, it's very, very sharp. In my tests of the 21mm setting (on a Leica M8), it resolved distant (2km) details right down to the point of causing moire (which in practical terms means that it is still outresolving the sensor). It did not exhibit any perceptible (or on an M8 measurable) focusing errors.

[Even had there been focusing errors, the cost of recollimating an M lens is only 5% of the typical selling price of this lens.]

There seems to be some buzz ("so-so performance") about the 35mm setting on this lens. I'm not sure what the source of this is (maybe the Erwin Puts review). The 35mm setting, tested at 1m and f/4, is equivalent to the performance of the 35/1.4 Summilux-ASPH (also at the same distance and f/4). If anyone other than Erwin is complaining about that, I'm not sure what lens out there is better (maybe the 35/2 Summicron ASPH?). And in further brief testing it seems to be at least as good as the 35mm setting on the Tri-Elmar.

Stopping down the lens does not make any big changes to vignetting or contrast. Vignetting is very mild on an M8 (if it's really even present at all). Contrast is high, but is not as high as the 28mm M-Hexanon (which some people believe renders too harshly).

Distortion is very mild, particularly for a retrofocus lens. There's a very tiny amount of barrel distortion at frame edge close-up (say, at 2m), but it's all but invisible at distances where you would be shooting architecture.

The finder is has dual framelines - 21mm (with parallax correction mark) and 35mm (without). The finder looks somewhat like a CV 21mm finder but bigger. The lens triggers 35mm framelines in the camera. The finder picture is a touch clearer than with Cosina finders. Very nice.

All in all, this is a very satisfying (and even at a $2K average price relatively economical) alternative to the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 (tested concurrently), a lens that seems to be hitting new price highs since its discontinuance (and the rise of the M8).

Regards,
Dante
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info - if I could only find one of these at a reasonable price....
Do you have any photos to post from this lens?
Thanks.
 
I'll post some on my site as soon as I get some that are aesthetically-pleasing enough to post. It's funny, but one of my near-range test targets includes an MIOJ Konica Standard (like a Model I but no flash synch).

As for pricing, I understand that only about 1,000 or so were made - and due to cross-elasticity of demand issues, it's not only the demand for the Dual that makes it expensive; it's also the demand for the nearest substitute, which is the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. Lots of M8s are being sold, some proportion of M8 buyers will want multi-focal-length lenses, and there is a finite (and closed) universe of lenses to satisfy that demand. Since the lens also fits a number of film cameras, some proportion of those users is also pursuing the same supply.
 
But your test on an M8 with its crop factor would not reveal any inherent light fall off or edge image quality loss in the corners that perhaps Erwin did detect doing his tests with full frame film?
 
Captain said:
But your test on an M8 with its crop factor would not reveal any inherent light fall off or edge image quality loss in the corners that perhaps Erwin did detect doing his tests with full frame film?

Certainly it's possible that there is a dropoff in contrast or illumination on the edges (and I will circle back to test this on film) - but it is not apparent that either is dropping off perceptibly across the 27mm width of an M8 sensor. It doesn't seem probable that either would magically and radically degrade in the last 3.5mm of usable film on each side (35mm film does not in most applications have a usable dimension of 24x36mm; by contrast, an 18x27 sensor is 100% utilized).

That said, the M8 is a better test vehicle, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is built to tighter tolerances than previous Ms. Second, it has a dead-flat imaging surface that is not influenced by how much film curls. Third, judging output is not dependent on intermediate steps like scanning negatives (the process of which can itself lead to softened corners). Finally, the M8 is the camera that most Leica people are now buying.

The Puts tests (which came out well before Leica digital Ms existed) didn't take into account the resolution limits of an M8 sensor. The review itself, from what I recall, explained nothing about how he drew his conclusions (focusing distance, subject type, film used, or even what body the lens was mounted to). So addressing his comments on an apples-to-apples basis is difficult, even if you set out to do it on film.
 
Sorry but you agree that Erwins test was done before the advent of a digital M and wonder why you reach different conclusions to those that use this lens on a film camera which is actually what the lens was designed for. You only assume that no lens suffers from a decrease in image quality in that last few mm's of the negative but thats exactly where most image degradation occurs. That last few mm's represents a large area to consider. Its one of the reasons why I dont subscribe to Sean Reids reviews they are all done on digitals with crop factors. I have no doubt its a great lens but you asked why people think its wishy washy but then test it on a different medium. Your argument that the M8 is the best medium because thats what most Leica people are buying? But its a Konica lens so what does the most popular Leica have to do with it? Overall M mount sales include, Hexar, Voigtlanders and Ikons and they are all full frame film cameras, combine that with MP's and M7 sales, ummmm no I dont think M8's sales match all of those. Given too that the M8 hasnt been out that long and that every test you have read with this lens predates it then I agree with you that you should test the lens again with film before asking that question. Still I think you will find it a superb lens I just question the medium in which you test it when asking the question at the top of this thread.

PS The M8 built to closer tolerances than any other M? Given that its the only M where every example has to be returned for some form of upgrade or fix and the only M that Leica has had to compensate people for its inherent faults, I would have to argue that point as well.
 
I own a Konica Dual. While it is a large lens, it is not that much larger then the 21/2.8 Elmarit. I find the convenience of this lens outweighs its performance. I didn't find the performance to be stellar on my M8 and I wish it focused closer. Still, it's a keeper.

Some soecific examples are here;
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394446
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394444
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78435275
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394236
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78462658

Please note, this lens does not vignette.
 
kbg32 said:
I own a Konica Dual. While it is a large lens, it is not that much larger then the 21/2.8 Elmarit. I find the convenience of this lens outweighs its performance. I didn't find the performance to be stellar on my M8 and I wish it focused closer. Still, it's a keeper.

Some soecific examples are here;
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394446
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394444
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78435275
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394236
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78462658

Please note, this lens does not vignette.

All images are soft. multiple focal lenss on RF? No I prefer DSLR.
 
kbg32 said:
I own a Konica Dual. While it is a large lens, it is not that much larger then the 21/2.8 Elmarit. I find the convenience of this lens outweighs its performance. I didn't find the performance to be stellar on my M8 and I wish it focused closer. Still, it's a keeper.

Some soecific examples are here;
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394446
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394444
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78435275
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394236
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78462658

Please note, this lens does not vignette.

Thank you for the photos - look very nice. I really like one with the chairs.
Deffinately a lens worth considering.
 
Sorry to OT a little, has anyone managed to mill the flange for 6-bit coding? I'm curious as to how the result will be with the M8 correction.
 
looks like vignetting to me

looks like vignetting to me

and not nearly as sharp as a 35/2 asph.

Better than a CV 28 3.5 though.

kbg32 said:
I own a Konica Dual. While it is a large lens, it is not that much larger then the 21/2.8 Elmarit. I find the convenience of this lens outweighs its performance. I didn't find the performance to be stellar on my M8 and I wish it focused closer. Still, it's a keeper.

Some soecific examples are here;
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394446
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394444
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78435275
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78394236
http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/78462658

Please note, this lens does not vignette.
 
Platinum RF said:
All images are soft. multiple focal lenss on RF? No I prefer DSLR.
BillBingham2 said:
I'm sticking with my primes!
B2 (;->
I'm puzzled how you can draw such conclusions from a picture that's less than 600x400 large? And for which you don't even know the shooting conditions and what image settings were used?
 
Good point Peter

Good point Peter

same applies to my comments. If anyone has other links to examples from this lens on flicker or other sites, from other photographers and styles, please post. While the pbase examples do little for me, I have no idea about the processing, film (or digital) whatever back end stuff.

Also, if anyone has one for sale cheap, please pm me ;)


pvdhaar said:
I'm puzzled how you can draw such conclusions from a picture that's less than 600x400 large? And for which you don't even know the shooting conditions and what image settings were used?
 
ampguy said:
same applies to my comments. If anyone has other links to examples from this lens on flicker or other sites, from other photographers and styles, please post. While the pbase examples do little for me, I have no idea about the processing, film (or digital) whatever back end stuff.

Also, if anyone has one for sale cheap, please pm me ;)

As I said, I used this lens on my M8 and the files were processed in CS2. I did use a UV/IR filter and the files were NOT sharpened.

It is a fun lens to use.
 
Last edited:
Update for film

Update for film

I reshot tests using film. These are my further observations based on examination with a 15x loupe (and for vignetting, the naked eye). I'm not going to throw these on a glass plate scanner and hit them for 4000dpi, because that injects way too many variables (and way too much trouble) into answering what was a simple question: does the lens perform as well on film as it does on digital?

1. No visible difference in vignetting between f/3.4 and f/8 at the 21mm setting. If there is vignetting at all outside the 27x18 area that would be covered by an M8 sensor, it's too subtle to see in the negatives. So if you thought you were going to see Super Angulon-style dark corners, you'll be disappointed.

2. Corner detail is fine wide open. Corner contrast picks up a touch as you stop down, but it's not as if stopping down makes anything new visible.

3. Stopping down improves things slightly more with film than with the M8. I suspect this is related to film curl. That said, it's a very, very subtle improvement with progressively smaller apertures. The M8 pretty much maxes out and then stays there as you stop down.

4. No focusing errors were apparent at 15x magnification. Infinity focus looked correct.

5. It was really cold today.

6. The Leica Universal Viewfinder M, if you are left-eyed, can push your view of the rangefinder off-center. Caution!

Dante
 
I bought one new lately and I think it worths the money both from its performance and gives me the convenience to travel with 21 and 35 focal lengths within 1 lense.

Thanks Dante for the info.

Dennis
 
Last edited:
I'd like to have one of these (I've been outbid several times), but I haven't pursued this lens hot-and-heavy, because I just don't see the convenience of a slow 35mm lens coupled to a slow 21mm lens. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of a "travel lens." If I'm traveling, I'm going to grab a 35mm lens that offers the best speed-to-size ratio, with the edge going to speed. I'm OK with a slow 21 when part of a travel kit, but a slow 35mm? You can kiss any available light interiors good-bye. :)

Otherwise, I like what I've seen with this lens, and Keith your images back that up. Nice shots. I like the chairs shot, but I'm liking the trees over the water.

:)
 
Back
Top Bottom