21mm lens

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Konica 35mm SLRs : One Thread

I have been in a search for a 21mm wide angle Konica lens, priced reasonably. As things go, I have run across 2 in local camera stores. One is a 21mm F4, in good condition not mint, with hood. The other is the 21mm F2.8. The 21mm F4 is a better deal at $150.00, but slower. With price being no object, does anyone have any feedback on either of these lenses? Are they both good lenses? The 2.8 version is more money, and in excellent condition, and is still selling cheaper then Ebay prices. Any thoughts would be helpful. It did cross my mind to buy both as nutty as that may seem.

Thanks in advance, Robert

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000


I'd go for it, and buy both. You did not say what the f2.8 lens cost? I have been shopping ebay for Konica lenses. People seem to go nuts for the 21mm Hexanon lenses. You could always get your money back on the lens that you decide not to keep by selling it on ebay. I have never had a lens that wide so I can't be any help there. I recently paid $31 plus $5 shipping for a Hexanon 28mm f3.5 w/case. It's a nice lens but the 21mm are rare and collectors grab them up.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2000

I haven't used the f4, but I have the f2.8. Very sharp, little distortion, small and light. One advantage over the f4 - the f2.8 uses 55mm filters, which is what most of the hexanon filters use, so you won't need to invest in an additional set.

One caveat - this is a VERY wide wideangle, which I use mostly as a specialty lens to make backgrounds go away. I don't find it too useful for things like landscapes, unless I want a lot of land and/or sky in the shot. Great for changing perspectives, however. It's a lens that helps - and requires - creativity.

Have fun.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2000

21 mm f4

I have the f4 version of the 21 mm and I can corroborate Randolph's earlier message (see 282 days ago) that sharpness is excellent. (No one seems to have both the f4 and the f2.8. If you decide on bying both, remember to post reslults of a comparison!) Using this lens have made me quite happy about the dramatic perspective it delivers, so much in fact that I have been looking for even shorter non-fisheye lenses and here one must turn to third party lenses. But what will fit and what is the quality? Any advice?

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2000

Wide-Angle Lenses


One possibility is the Tokina 17mm f3.5, which was made in Konica AR mount. These would only be available on the used market. I have a Tokina zoom that gives very good results, and mates perfectly with my Konicas.


-- Anonymous, January 31, 2000

Wide-Angle Lenses: Tokinas

Folks, IMHO, Tokinas are about the best choice for third-party lenses (yes, my asbestos suit just came back from the cleaners). Optically, they are generally excellent with little variation in quality and mechanically, they are made to Konica tolerances better than the others, especially in the mounts and body-to-lens linkages. As an aside and possible explanation for my opinion, way, way, back in the Dark Ages, both Konica and Tokina were imported by the same company, Berkey Photo. The association was very close between them and I suspect Tokina were making lenses for them almost immediately the company was formed.

Jon from Deepinaharta, Georgia

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2000

21mm Hexanon Comparison Tests

I own both the 21/4.0 and 21/2.8 Konica Hexanon lenses. I have owned the 21/4.0 since 1970 and have generally been pleased with it's performance, although I admit to using it infrequently (the 24mm 2.8 is my full time wide angle). I purchased the 21/2.8 a year ago or so in order to compare it to the 21/4.0. I made the comparison a few months ago and decided to sell the worst performer on eBay. Life isn't always fair, and such was the case in this test of the two Hexanons. I used Kodachrome 25 slide film and a tripod mounted FT-1 body. I took shots of a busy commercial area with edge to edge and corner to corner detail from a hillside vista at wide open aperture and at F 8.0. I evaluated the finished slides with a 30X magnifier, and the results were unmistakable: the 21/2.8 Hexanon was noticeably sharper at the center, and the 21/4.0 was noticeably sharper at the edges! Either lens could be preferable for a given circumstance. What to do? How to choose? Keep both? Flip a coin? Evaluate needs? Build a decision matrix? Arrrrrgh! In the end, nostalgia ruled the day. I decided to keep my old 21/4.0. At 30X, the center still looks pretty good when you don't make direct comparisons, and like I said, I don't use it a lot anyway. The 21/2.8 will likely be up on eBay soon. It is perfectly mint in box with hood, caps, and case. It has been on a camera one time for two pictures. Thought those of you who worry about such things would like to know (as did I). Now you know, so go out and take some pictures!


-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ