Hektor135mm ;Leica's cheapest lens?

dadsm3

Well-known
Local time
5:44 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Hamilton Ontario Canada
Pulled my Hektor out, now you pull yours. I know there's a lot of closet Hektor users out there......consider this an opportunity to come clean and admit it. M6, Fuji400.
 

Attachments

  • Mikeyserious1.jpg
    Mikeyserious1.jpg
    331.2 KB · Views: 0
  • blimphektorII.jpg
    blimphektorII.jpg
    312.3 KB · Views: 0
Looks like a nice lens... to bad I accidentally bought a M mount instead of ltm... :bang: :bang: :bang: Oh well, one of these days I'll sort it out. They can be had cheaply (mine was <$40), but I'm guessing not for long if this thread gets around!

Cheers!

Peter
 
physiognomy said:
Looks like a nice lens... to bad I accidentally bought a M mount instead of ltm... :bang: :bang: :bang: Oh well, one of these days I'll sort it out. They can be had cheaply (mine was <$40), but I'm guessing not for long if this thread gets around!

Cheers!

Peter

UM, the 135mm Hektor was available in "M" mount also.
 
Love mine. I use it with my M6. Great lens for portrait, at full aperture. Cheap and useful, I don't feel the need to buy a modern 135, since for my portrait work is perfect used in combination with 75mm Summilux. Cheers, and don't be embarassed by the old goldies... I have modern lenses, but find lot more interesting to try old cheap scratchy lenses, and always I am amazed by the results... 🙂
 
I find 135mm has the most bang-for-the-buck in rangefinder lenses. Not only the Leica ones, but Nikkors, Canon/Serenars, Steinheils and a few others are remarkably good lenses for dirt cheap. I have a Hektor in screw mount which I used quite a bit with an M adaptor, until last year I got a T-E for $250 in KEH "Bargain" which for the life of me is at least EXC+ if not Mint-. If I get an M8 it will finally get me back the 180 I have missed dearly. I even picked up the short focusing mount that goes on a Visoflex, and discovered that by using a 14167 M-R and an R-EOS adaptor I can use it on my 20D!
 
David Murphy said:
The 9cm Elmar's are sometimes almost as cheap -- a little soft IMO though. Looks like your Hektor handles color well -- my guess is that it's coated.

The old 9cm LTM Elmars aren't THAT soft.
 

Attachments

  • 0013242-R7-016-6A.jpg
    0013242-R7-016-6A.jpg
    733.4 KB · Views: 0
I have one and like it

I have one and like it

I paid $100 for it and its in perfect condition. The shot below was taken with it
 

Attachments

  • 135mins.jpg
    135mins.jpg
    194.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 135delta.jpg
    135delta.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 0
I seldom use my 50's coated Hektor 135/4.5 and the times I have used it found it to be good.

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I picked up a M mount 4.5 for under $50 two years ago. I've probably used it a half dozen times, but I've been impressed with the results I get from a 50 year old lens! I think the M mount 135 Hector was only made for a year or two. It's kind of surprising how often one sees them available.
 
FYI they weren't that cheap originally. In my 1959 catalogue they're listed at $126. The rigid 50mm Summicrons were $129.....M3's were $270, M2's were $216.....but everyone knows they're not as good!
Here are other prices; (note they are all bayonet mounts)
21mm Super Angulon F4: $240
35mm Goggled Summaron F3.5: $126
Same no goggles for M2: $82.50
35mm Goggled Summaron F2.8: $138
Same no goggles for M2: $105
35mm Goggled 'cron F2: $207
Same no goggles for M2: $174
50mm Elmar F2.8: $60
50mm Elmar F3.5: $51
50mm 'cron Rigid: $129
50mm DR 'cron w/goggles: $168
50mm Summarit F1.5: $99
50mm Summilux F1.4: $198
90mm 'cron F2: $199.50
90mm Elmarit F2.8: $165
90mm Elmar F4: $93
90mm Elmar F4 collapsible: $126
135mm Hektor F4: $126
So these Hektors were by no means budget lenses at that time....
 
Back
Top Bottom