Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Konica Hexanon AR 21mm 2.8 value
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:07 pm    Post subject: Konica Hexanon AR 21mm 2.8 value Reply with quote
If I were looking for this lens what would be a fair price? Only one sold recently on e-bay was a mint example in the case for 495. Opinions please. Should I try to get this or save my money for the voigtlander 15mm? (for my A7ii)


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CV15 III is very nice IMO

http://manuellfokus.no/voigtlander-super-wide-heliar-15mm-f4-5-asp-iii/


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
CV15 III is very nice IMO

http://manuellfokus.no/voigtlander-super-wide-heliar-15mm-f4-5-asp-iii/

Very impressive. That was with the Leica version, too. There is now a sony e mount version, though the sony mount seems to be a couple hundred dollars more. I did put a minimum bid on the Konica but I doubt I will get it. I should sell some of my junk to get that lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love Konica lenses and suspect that the 21mm would be an excellent performer. That said I suspect that the prices are inflated by collectors, which is why my widest Hexanon is the 24mm.

I did spend the collectors penalty for the 1.2/57 in order to get that extra speed but, for me, the difference between 21mm and 24mm doesn't justify the added cost.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To me, Canon FD or Zuiko sound more cost efficient. At $500 level I'd start looking for a Distagon.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got an Hexanon 21mm 1:4 (together with a few T2 & T3 and some other lenses) for CHF 81.-- / EUR 75.-- last year, and saw a Hexanon 2.8/21mm selling for about CHF 350.-- in a local auction (NOT ebay). A Hexanon 1.8/28mm went for CHF 600.-- just a few days ago. These prices are cleary collectors prices. Probably a Canon FD 2.8/20mm is the better performer anyway, but i don't have proof (the Hexanon 4/21mm isn't stellar at all).

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
(the Hexanon 4/21mm isn't stellar at all).

Someone posted photos taken with this lens on this forum a couple months ago and the lens looked like an excellent performer.

EDIT: Also:

Quote:
Prior to the introduction of the 15mm fisheye in 1975, the 21/4.0 was the Hexanon wide-angle lens with the widest field of view. Its retrofocus design meant that no mirror lock up was required to use it. As a result, one could view and focus while looking through it, in contrast to many other lenses of similar focal length available at the time. It was also uncommon in that it produced far less vignetting at full aperture than other comparable lenses. Modern Photography magazine tested it and found it can resolve almost 100 lpm at f5.6 (!!!). All in all, it was also one of the best such lens on the market in its time. It's a rectilinear wide-angle lens whose 5 different versions only differ by their outer appearance and, especially, their coatings. It is a very sharp lens with good flare control, despite its very wide and exposed front optical element. Its light hood is, in fact a lens cap with a rectangular opening (very difficult to find on its own). It is quite heavy in comparison with its successor, the 21/2.8 and takes uncommon 77mm filters.

(Source: https://sites.google.com/site/tks0en/3-hexanon-ar-lenses/-super-wide-angle-lenses)


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I quite like my Konica 21/4, it might have been I who posted the 21/4 shots.
I've heard the 21/2.8 is better, but I haven't seen a comparison between them.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
stevemark wrote:
(the Hexanon 4/21mm isn't stellar at all).

Someone posted photos taken with this lens on this forum a couple months ago and the lens looked like an excellent performer.

I do not remember to have seen full-sized JPGs from a 24MP FF camera here. Images with roughly 1000x1500px (=1.5 MP) will look good with nearly any lens. That's why i use 24MP or 42MP Full Frame cameras to show the differences.

EDIT: Also:

invisible wrote:
Quote:
Prior to the introduction of the 15mm fisheye in 1975, the 21/4.0 was the Hexanon wide-angle lens with the widest field of view. Its retrofocus design meant that no mirror lock up was required to use it. As a result, one could view and focus while looking through it, in contrast to many other lenses of similar focal length available at the time. It was also uncommon in that it produced far less vignetting at full aperture than other comparable lenses. Modern Photography magazine tested it and found it can resolve almost 100 lpm at f5.6 (!!!). All in all, it was also one of the best such lens on the market in its time. It's a rectilinear wide-angle lens whose 5 different versions only differ by their outer appearance and, especially, their coatings. It is a very sharp lens with good flare control, despite its very wide and exposed front optical element. Its light hood is, in fact a lens cap with a rectangular opening (very difficult to find on its own). It is quite heavy in comparison with its successor, the 21/2.8 and takes uncommon 77mm filters.

(Source: https://sites.google.com/site/tks0en/3-hexanon-ar-lenses/-super-wide-angle-lenses)

Superwides NEVER have a problem with center resulution, not even wide open. Absolutely no surprise that also the Konica 4/21mm has excellent center performance. The differences between different lenses are to be found in the field, and more pronounced, in the corners.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Images with roughly 1000x1500px (=1.5 MP) will look good with nearly any lens. That's why i use 24MP or 42MP Full Frame cameras to show the differences.

...

Superwides NEVER have a problem with center resulution, not even wide open. Absolutely no surprise that also the Konica 4/21mm has excellent center performance. The differences between different lenses are to be found in the field, and more pronounced, in the corners.

Stephan


Well said. I agree totally.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/tags/konicahexanon214/


Full size A7r: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8600/16099380823_71ac930589_o_d.jpg


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting image - though with similar problems i have reported!

Here are two crops from the above image, from the upper left and upper right corners. Both trees are at the same distance, yet their resolution is completely different.



* Lens problem?
* Adapter problem?
* Camera / sensor problem? (remember the "tilted sensors" of early Minolta Dynax 7D DSLRs - they did look exactly like this image)

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Interesting image - though with similar problems i have reported!

Here are two crops from the above image, from the upper left and upper right corners. Both trees are at the same distance, yet their resolution is completely different.



* Lens problem?
* Adapter problem?
* Camera / sensor problem? (remember the "tilted sensors" of early Minolta Dynax 7D DSLRs - they did look exactly like this image)

Stephan


How about Perception Problem? If your picked samples are actually from the far left and right corners I highly doubt that the trees in question are equidistant from the camera. I suspect that the trees in the upper right corner are considerably further from the camera than those in the left corner.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
newst wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Interesting image - though with similar problems i have reported!

Here are two crops from the above image, from the upper left and upper right corners. Both trees are at the same distance, yet their resolution is completely different.



* Lens problem?
* Adapter problem?
* Camera / sensor problem? (remember the "tilted sensors" of early Minolta Dynax 7D DSLRs - they did look exactly like this image)

Stephan


How about Perception Problem? If your picked samples are actually from the far left and right corners I highly doubt that the trees in question are equidistant from the camera. I suspect that the trees in the upper right corner are considerably further from the camera than those in the left corner.

+1. In fact, I don't just suspect. I think it's very clear that the trees are at a different distance. In my opinion, the posted photo makes the lens look great.

That being said, perhaps Stephan's copy of the lens was not as good, or it wasn't in optimal condition. It happens.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Interesting image - though with similar problems i have reported!
Stephan

What problems? This was wide open... Maybe f5.6, I'm surprised the corners are as good as they are, and besides the trees are not the subject, the car is Smile
I do think the left side may be slightly softer than the right.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Interesting image - though with similar problems i have reported!
Stephan

What problems? This was wide open... Maybe f5.6, I'm surprised the corners are as good as they are, and besides the trees are not the subject, the car is Smile
I do think the left side may be slightly softer than the right.


On your image, there are huge differences between left and right side resolution - i have never seen such differences with Minolta and Canon FD / new FD lenses!

Quite a few of my Hexanon lenses, however, especially the zooms!, do have similar (centering?) problems.

Stephan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1