Shooting with a 1960 Hektor 135mm f/4.5 on the Leica M10 Monochrom

[Godfrey]

Three photos with the Hektor 135mm f/4.5.

068

Mailbox On Fence - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Hektor 135mm f/4.5, Green filter
ISO 1600 @ f/8 @ 1/750

077

Yellow Jacket Trap & Fence - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Hektor 135mm f/4.5, Green filter
ISO 3200 @ f/8 @ 1/500

072

Gate - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Hektor 135mm f/4.5, Green filter
ISO 6400 @ f/8 @ 1/500

During this shooting session, I had the Visoflex 020 fitted to the camera so I could check focusing accuracy against the rangefinder. After about 10 frames or so, I found I'd learned how to "see" the rangefinder focusing alignment precisely enough to no longer need the Visoflex. It's a bit fussy because the Hektor has a very fine-thread focusing helicoid and the focus at distance changes the coincident images very very slowly and slightly.

G

 

[Rayt]

A 135mm in M mount will be my next purchase. I had one but hard to focus with film. The Viso on my M10M and 1/2000s makes it possible now.

 

[Godfrey]

A 135mm in M mount will be my next purchase. I had one but hard to focus with film. The Viso on my M10M and 1/2000s makes it possible now.

The Visoflex and Live View allows for a great deal of flexibility and versatility in lens choice and use. In addition to the Hektor 135mm, I have a lovely Leica Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8, fitted with a R Adapter M to the M10, that not only images superbly, focuses very close (for a 135mm lens), and mates perfectly with the Leitz Focusing Bellows-R for doing three dimensional macro work. And I think the lens cost me less than $350 when I bought it in 2014.

G

 

[Rayt]

The Visoflex and Live View allows for a great deal of flexibility and versatility in lens choice and use. In addition to the Hektor 135mm, I have a lovely Leica Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8, fitted with a R Adapter M to the M10, that not only images superbly, focuses very close (for a 135mm lens), and mates perfectly with the Leitz Focusing Bellows-R for doing three dimensional macro work. And I think the lens cost me less than $350 when I bought it in 2014.

G

I have owned that Elmarit 3 times these 20 years trying to like it but it’s too heavy to hold and manual focus. A friend of mine loves the R version and I understand it’s the same design. The Elmar is such a great lens and a bargain. Tones on your Hektor is beautiful so maybe I’ll go for that one.

 

[Ronald M]

I have found older lenses “sparkle” in higher rez digital like they never did on film. Examples are 135 4.0 elmar, 90 2.0 pre asph, Mandler design 90 2.8. Learn to adjust the RF precisely because there is no depth of field. My 90 2.0 was bought new and was on a camera 3 time when I put it away. I do not hesitate to use it now

The focusing is more refined with M10 over M9. None of the “bad” lenses were off, it was always a camera issue.
If you have a Nikon Z6 and use the back button to go to 100%, astounding focus is achieved.

 

[Godfrey]

I have owned that Elmarit 3 times these 20 years trying to like it but it’s too heavy to hold and manual focus. A friend of mine loves the R version and I understand it’s the same design. The Elmar is such a great lens and a bargain. Tones on your Hektor is beautiful so maybe I’ll go for that one.

My Elmarit 135 is the Leica R lens, not M-mount. ... It is somewhat heavy, but I only rarely use such a long focal length and most usually with a tripod.

I think a lot of the bad reputation given the Hektor 135 was because of the limitations of it's use with a rangefinder as well as potentially out of calibration rangefinders. My father had an old one (probably 1949, pre-coating version) which I used quite a bit way back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and it seemed to work well ... But I always used it on the short mount with a Visoflex housing then, never had the rangefinder mount for it. The one I have now is from the last year of Hektor 135 production; the Elmar 135 replaced it in 1961.

G