135mm Hektar

<p>Is it really as bad as everyone seems to claim? It was on the Leitz list for many years -- why would they keep it if it wasn't good? (I have a late LTM Elmar f:4, and Tele-Elmarit for the M system, both of which are superb,. but I'd like to be able to use my 36mm clamp-on filters for the 35/50/90 Elmars.<br>

How about the OLD 135 Elmar -- even worse than the Hektar?<br>

(If there's a problem with the question -- I had surgery today and am still groggy from the Anesthesia, should stay away from the computer before I make a total ass out of myself. Forgive me.)</p>

<p>Hektor. In trivial comparison tests with my Canon 135/3.5, the Canon was obviously sharper and more contrasty -- and my Hektor is coated. Of course the Canon is much larger. No idea how the Canon 135/4 compares, it does use the same filters as the Hektor. (I have it, just never really tested it.)<br>

It's certainly a very cheap lens, so you're not out much money at all if you're not happy with it!</p>

<p>The 135 Hektor/4.5 is a design from 1933, which was produced until 1960, when it was surpassed by much better designs and coatings. Erwin Puts gives lots of details and MTF charts in his Compendium. The newer designs are significantly better.</p>

<p>It is not all that different from the 135mm f4 Elmar, but just a bit slower. It will depend, obviously, on whether you get a coated one or not.</p>

<p>I own one of the early (1932) uncoated, coupled f4.5 Elmars. I did a little lens test many years ago and I was startled by how contrasty and sharp it was. You should expect newer designs to be improvements, however, at the time these lenses were produced, they were close to as good as you could get.<br>

I have a couple Hektors, one wartime and one in a short focus mount. I have not shot them.</p>

<p>For a long while, the Hektor was the only 135mm lens by Leitz. It may be that the absence of alternatives made it acceptable. Today, it continues to be used because it is cheap. I had an M mount one for my M6: and, while it would have won no prizes, it was not disgustingly awful either.</p>

<p>?For a long while, the Hektor was the only 135mm lens by Leitz. It may be that the absence of alternatives made it acceptable."<br>

Not quite the whole story. Leica had a real competitor in the Zeiss Contax, with its 135mm f:4.0 Sonnar, which was an excellent and faster lens, even by today's standards.</p>

<p>According to Ken Rockwell, Hektor was Oskar Barnack's dog, and that the name is entirely appropriate for the lens. The 135 f/4 Tele-Elmar is a superb lens, for very little money.</p>

<p>Bill, in "the Hektor was the only 135mm lens by Leitz", perhaps you should replace the last two words with "for the Leica camera".</p>

I have a 1936 135mm F4.5 Hektor which I uesed qite alot with acceptable results.<div></div>