Hektor 135/4.5 -- how bad is it ?

[mgrinnan]

Hey all,

My local photo store just got a Hektor in. I shoot on an M3 and have wanted an Elmar for awhile. From what I've heard these lenses aren't great. Should I wait around for an Elmar? What does everybody suggest.

If you have any pix taken with the Hektor, please post!

Thanks

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I don't think it's bad, but I rarely need this focal lenght when shooting my Leicas.
Upside is that they are pretty cheap 🙂

M3 DS, 135mm f/4.5 Hektor LTM, Fomapan 100

Leica IIIc, 135mm f/4.5 Hektor LTM, Fomapan 100

 

[mgrinnan]

thank you for your input

thank you for your input

Mi gusta. Is that a mini-14 in the second one?

 

[Godfrey]

It's not a modern lens, but it's a fine lens nonetheless if in good condition. Mine is a 1959-1960 model. I posted these just the other day:

All: Leica M-D + Hektor 135mm f/4.5​

G

 

[AZPhotog]

The Hector is the cheaper lens line, but unless you are going to take a microscope to your negs you are not likely to observe any issues, as long as your lens in overall good condition.

All the pics above are proof of really decent IQ.

🙂

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Mi gusta. Is that a mini-14 in the second one?

That is an M1 Garand. The "Greatest battle implement ever devised" according to George Patton Jr. 😉

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

As Shakespear, as Hamlet, said "There is no thing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

Note 1, there are dozens of different ways of spelling the author's name, he used some of them;

Note 2, many people prefer the short or jungle Lee-Enfield and

Note 3, the lens is a little on the soft side; that might be good or bad.

Regards, David

 

[peterm1]

The Hektor 135mm f4.5 is fine. The Elmar which followed it is better as it is equipped with the same lanthanum glass used by the Summicron lens. If you allow for the older lens coating, stopped down a little it is perfectly OK and delivers a more classic rendering.

 

[Dralowid]

I'd look for a Tele Elmar, a Mandler lens and excellent all round. They are normally not a whole lot more and are fairly common.
(Having said that he was also responsible for the 135 f4 Elmar which I don't know)

 

[charjohncarter]

Not too bad. I don't use it much but it has never made me mad:

Podva House March Morning by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[mslatfly]

Hi,

As Shakespear, as Hamlet, said "There is no thing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

Note 1, there are dozens of different ways of spelling the author's name, he used some of them;

Note 2, many people prefer the short or jungle Lee-Enfield and

Note 3, the lens is a little on the soft side; that might be good or bad.

Regards, David

I've heard that you used to be able to start fights over whether the SMLE or the Springfield was a better rifle. Those were the days.

 

[leicapixie]

The Tele-Elmar is a wonderful lens.
Sharp at full aperture, stopping down merely more depth of field.
I have had 3 Hektors, all miserable.
The 1st purchased in ignorance.
A unknown enlarger 135mm optic far superior.
The next 2 were at different periods.
No.2 Hektor part of a box of mixed trash.
Tested and traded immediately.
No.3 Hektor bought for the Leica lens cap and back cap.
I kept it for super soft "plastic" look in portraits..

The Hektor much lighter in weight.
Look harder and get the Tele-Elmar.

ps. Hektor name of the designers dog!?:angel:

 

[Emile de Leon]

Elmar F4 is good ...Hektor..not so much unless you want an older look..