Alternatives for Leica glass

Well, the Hexanon arrived and now I'm trying to close a deal with a guy selling an Elmar f4 LTM (aka "Screw Mount"). Any further comments, Brian?
 
The Elmar is nice. It is longer than you might think, because it is not a "Telephoto" design; but is an "Tessar-type" four element lens with a 90mm focal length. It is light, and the focus is smooth. All of the other manufacturers had their versions of it; and are now rare. Nikon had the 10.5cm F4 Nikkor-T in S-Mount and F-Mount. Canon had the 100mm F4 in LTM. The Nikkor goes for BIG bucks 600~700.

I picked up the Canon last night in my other open window for $91 last night reading this column. It had the case, finder, and caps. It will make up to the Canon 7 for the M3 getting the Elmar, and I can blame you guys for pushing me over the edge.

It looked in great shape; if it is, a nice "comparison" will be in order. Yes... that is why I needed it... comparison of Uncoated Leica Elmar vs Coated Canon Serenar... Yes... Blame Thread...

Did I ever mention that I am really bad?:bang:
 
Last edited:
I have several LTM 135 lenses that I've picked up "for comparison purposes" (yeah, sure, snort). I have two Canon 135 f3.5's in chrome (but not marked "Serenar"), one Canon 135 f3.5 in black, one Kyoei Super-Acall 135 f3.5 and one Leica Hektor 135 f4.5.

I took them out on my balcony, screwed my Bessa R onto a tripod, and tried a variety of shots, from wide-open to closed down tight at infinity. Should have shot some short and medium-range shots as well, but there you go, I forgot.

I had a very hard time telling the negs apart - except for the Hektor. I was surprised.

I had bought the Hektor to use on a Zorki 4K before I got the Bessa R (and the Zorki fell apart; literally). The Hektor would not mount on my Zorki anyway, the focus tab snags the rangefinder foot on the Zorki and knocks it out of alignment. I paid, as I recall, $45 for the Hektor on eBay - it has some light scratches on the front element. All in all, I had not been impressed with it, and put it back in it's plastic tube and ignored it.

However, after testing...

The pictures from the Hektor were VERY different from the pictures from the Canon's and Kyoei on the same roll of film. First of all, it was better wide-open then the others. Of course, wide-open on the Hektor is 4.5, not 3.5. Second, the colors were more intense, and contrast was, for lack of a better word, creamier. After scanning the negs at 2800 dpi on the Minolta Dual Scan III, the black Canon 135 was the clear winner for 'sharpness' or 'acuity' in terms of objects being identifiable after severe blow-up. But I really liked the overall look of the Hektor MUCH better!

The Hektor is much lighter in weight than the Kyoei or the WOW heavy chrome Canons, but it is a bit longer.

I'm sorry I don't have the test images to post, but I'm in Baltimore right now. I plan to do more tests as soon as I can.

I suspect that the Hektor is non-coated, but perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, I sure like it better than the Canons for the character of the color and the overall feeling it gives.

Sorry to be so subjective, but just my 2 cents...

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Well... all is said and done. You guys are to blame for my fall into the realm of "old, non-coated" lenses. I mailed a check for the lens, and Paypal-ed funds to Stephen Gandy to get the adapter ring.

Now, if those shots ain't creamy and warm... I'll put the whole, entire and absolute responsibility on you two! :) :D

JK!!!

Thanks for your very useful 0.02, Bill. They're worth a small fortune!!
 
Bill,
I know what you mean about the Hektor. I have the Nikkor 13.5cm in LTM; a different look. I keep it on the Canon; and the Hektor on the M3. I also picked up a Steinhel 13.5 F4.5 in LTM that I need to test out.

The 135's go for a song. I picked up a 13.5 Nikkor for the S3 for $45! It was the later black model. At those prices, I do not feel guilty about picking them up for comparison. I have a "kit" for the M3, S3, and Canon 7. I can grab a camera bag with any of the trhee with a Fast normal, 85 or 90, and 135. Each has their own "personality".

Francisco, you are going to love the Elmar. If you do not; I will send you the Jupiter-9 8.5cm f2 in LTM, 1979 vintage, for a comparison and you can send me back the one you don't want.
 
Brian, I may take you up on your offer... Although more for curiosity about shooting with a Jupiter than anything else.

Of course, your generosity has earned you a lot of admiration on this side of paradise! :)
 
The back element from the J-12 is indeed scaring. Messing up your Bessa or Leica shutter for a $50 lens is definitely not a good policy...

I've seen some pictures taken with an M6 and the Jupiter, so I asume that's possible, probably the best way to know it is leaving your shutter open at B and then carefully mount the lens in place to see how deep it arrives.

Once in place it's a nice compact lens, but that awkward f-stop ring is a bit annoying. I'm planning in doing some tiny paint marks on both lens barrel and the border of that ring, to have adjustments for f8 and f4 without having to look INSIDE the lens.

Then there are those recognized flare problems too...

But after all, it looks kinda nice :)
 
Last edited:
I am giving away my favorite fishing holes.

Midwest Photo Exchange has a Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 LTM in 8++ (about an 8.5/10 if you remember Del's, or EX if you know KEH) for $185. I have the 3.5cm F2.5 for my S3. You will not have to worry about the shutter.

This is where I picked up my 5cm F1.4 Nikkor in LTM.

http://www.mpex.com/current_index.htm
 
Taffer, when I saw photos of the 35mm Jupiter lens, I backed out. As you have said, it's scary how far it goes. I looked at my Leica body and the room between the lens mount and the shutter curtain is kinda limited. Even though the adapter ring adds a bit of distance, the risk was too high for me, so I went for a Konica lens instead.

Now, I've observed the back of the Jupiter 9 lenses, and they seem pretty reasonable.

Speaking of favorite fishing holes... take a look at whan Koh's Camera has to offer too. I got my Contax G1 from them: body and Planar 45mm lens, about a year ago, for the wonderful sum of $435 (shipping included). Granted, it was a user (cosmetics at about 8, perhaps), but it's still kicking well and strong!

Try contacting Jeff Cole, the manager (who is an admirably nice guy!) at www.kohscamera.com. :D
 
taffer, I looked at that auction too and decided no for a couple reasons. First, 50 Noktons sell new at Central Camera in Chicago and B&H in NYC for only $340. I think the current price is high for a reconditioned lens, I would look for more of a discount. Next I have never heard of what this "class b" status is. Who knows what was wrong with the lens. Finally, there is no current formal distributor for Cosina products in the US. Folks like Steve Gandy of cameraquest.com and Photo Village in NYC import the products directly from Cosina and apparently have relationships with Cosina, but the warranties they offer are specific to only products they sell. THK was a former distributor of Cosina products, but that relationship has been severed. Personally I conservatively will believe that THK will not honor any warrenty on Cosina products, particularly for this transaction which will be after their formal relationship with Cosina has ended.
 
Thanks for the advice Rover, I was just wondering what the next step after russian glass should be and when I saw this auction I found it interesting. CV products are way EXPENSIVE here, both Bessa R and R2, around 600€, 425€ for that Nokton.

Of course I someday I get some CV camera or lens I won't probably buy it here :)

Not that I'm going to change my shooting basis in a short term, as I've just started with RFs, and in fact I like to use both my LTM and Contax mount cameras.

BTW, is there any 'reasonable' adapter solution to use Contax mount lenses on LTM bodies? I've heard of the Cook & Perkins, but nowadays it's more a collector's item than anything.

Best !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom