DeeCee3
Established
I've decided to round out my M2 lens stable by adding a 135mm. Times are tough hereabouts so my choice is limited to an oldie-but-goodie. Of the two, which is the one preferred: the Elmar f4 or the Hektor f4?
Wish I could afford something more modern but I'm being realistic. Your suggestions will be thoughtfully considered.
dc3
Wish I could afford something more modern but I'm being realistic. Your suggestions will be thoughtfully considered.
dc3
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The Elmar 135 is a better lens than the Hektor for regular use. The Hektor lenshead, combined with a Visoflex is a better close-up kit lens.
With the M2 you should factor in a finder of some kind as the M2 lacks the frames for the 135,
An alternative is the Tele-Elmar 135/4 - they are surprisingly cheap and about as good as it gets in 135!
The Hektor has been around for a long time and you better be careful - the older, pre-war versions are very soft in contrast and usually suffer from fog and scratches. The postwar M-version is better, but again, the Elmar 135/4 is an improvement (it is also a bit of a rarety in nice shape and more expensive). On both of these you will need some kind of hood as well as an adapter from screw to bayonet.
With the M2 you should factor in a finder of some kind as the M2 lacks the frames for the 135,
An alternative is the Tele-Elmar 135/4 - they are surprisingly cheap and about as good as it gets in 135!
The Hektor has been around for a long time and you better be careful - the older, pre-war versions are very soft in contrast and usually suffer from fog and scratches. The postwar M-version is better, but again, the Elmar 135/4 is an improvement (it is also a bit of a rarety in nice shape and more expensive). On both of these you will need some kind of hood as well as an adapter from screw to bayonet.
DeeCee3
Established
Thanks, Tom
Thanks, Tom
I appreciate your thoughts, Tom. Years ago when I was a young hotshot, I used both the Elmar and the Hektor but couldn't recall which was the better lens. You've reminded me! And, yes, I do have a VF already although the RF patch in the M2 will work (as a framing device) in a pinch.
dc3
Thanks, Tom
I appreciate your thoughts, Tom. Years ago when I was a young hotshot, I used both the Elmar and the Hektor but couldn't recall which was the better lens. You've reminded me! And, yes, I do have a VF already although the RF patch in the M2 will work (as a framing device) in a pinch.
dc3
besk
Well-known
In case anyne is interested I have an excellent Elmar-M 134/4 that I was planning on selling. PM me if interested.
ferider
Veteran
Just a thought: the Elmarit 135/2.8 shows up frequently for way below US 300. Its big, but a great lens, and you can use your M2 framelines ... It's a pain to use a 135 external viewfinder for anything closer than infinity.
Roland.
Roland.
Beemermark
Veteran
I'd vouch for the 135/2.8 also. I have one and I like it. They go for way less than $300.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Have owned and used the Hektor, the Tele-Elmar and the Elmarit. Best images were from the TE. The Elmarit left me lukewarm but unless you're using an M3 or a .85x M6, having the extra focusing precision from the goggles is very nice.
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
I vote for the Tele Elmar every time. It really is not that expensive and in my experience, significantly better than the older lenses. Reversible lens hood helps also and it is a take everywhere lens. The 2.8 is just too big for me and tends to get left behind (or sold), it doesn't fit in a pocket.
Michael
Michael