Pix from 28/6.3 Hektor? Anyone? Anyone?

[brett_davis1]

I was just wondering if anybody here has a 28 f6.3 Hektor, and can

post pictures from it. I don't know why I want to see them, but it's

such a dinky lens that I am curious. Or if anyone could write an

informed review, that would be of interest to me as well, for some

reason.

 

Thanks in advance,

Brett

[jtdnyc]

Brett, I don't own the lens but I do have some old Leica books at home that I believe have shots taken with the 28/6.3 Hektor. I'll try to find the references for you when I get home.

 

(If I don't post again on this thread in the next 24 hours, feel free to e-mail me and remind me.)

[jerry_lehrer]

Brett,

 

I tried one of these lenses in 1947, and it was not to my liking. I was using film like Panatomic-X ( speed 24 Weston). A slow lens like

that would not cut it, even when I developed in Edwal 12.

 

Jerry

[Rob F.]

In 1947, 24 was pretty good! Kodachrome was, what, 6 or 8? After I started shooting it, around 1953 I guess, Kodachrome went up to 10. We knew we were living in the modern age then. I know, you could get Plus-X, Double-X, & Tri-X, but still, 24 was pretty decent. 1/25 at f/16 was nothing to sneeze at--especially during--as that would likely blur the picture.

[john_shriver]

<p>Sample picture in

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0046tP">this</a>

photo.net thread.</p>

 

<p>Found easily with the Google search

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=leica+28mm+hektor+site:www.photo.net+photo&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N">

leica 28mm hektor site:www.photo.net photo</a>. Please do try searching first.</p>

[john_shriver]

Also, looking at that photo, and those comments, I'll say that while the Canon rangefinder 28mm f/3.5 lens is disparaged here by some folks, it sure vignettes less, and mine looks sharper than this Hektor shot. There was a reason Canon bragged about it being "three times faster than the f/6.3 lens" (without naming Leica).

 

(If I ever get a need for in-camera vignetting, there's always my Summar...)

[brett_davis1]

I did search, but that threat didn't pop up. But thanks.

[brett_davis1]

And, Rob, I do like the line, "Kodachrome went up to 10." Reminds me that

although I have been shooting seriously since the late 1970s, I have not been

in this game long at all.

[stephen_w.]

Why bother with these "old" 28's. I do use "older" 35s and 50's, but the Hector commands a premium price (collector piece) and is not comparable in performance with the later (I and III) Elmarits, which I had used. I liked the rendition (Ver. I inparticular), but couldn't pass up the resale price, and the 28 length and I don't agree (either too wide or not wide enough. The 24 is too expensive to try, for me. I'll use a 21 S/A).

[al_kaplan1]

I picked up the later 28/5.6 Summaron at a yard sale about $30 years ago completer with hood, finder and cases. I hardly used it because I just don't "see 28mm". Then I got a mint first edition 2.8 Elmarit atan estate sale. Still didn't "see 28mm". I now also have a 21mm f/3.4 Super Angulon and I love it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Russian 28mm F6 Orion-15 in LTM is not bad. Mine actually fits on a Bessa r; while others have problems mounting it. Here it is on a M3<BR><img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-205.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

<img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-203.jpg">

[will_wright1]

a clean one is a suprisingly successful lens. I did an article for

LHSA "Viewfinder" once on mine. Once you get used to f6.3 as

a maximum aperture it's a quite sharp lens. vignettes a bit wide

open but at daylight aperturs its very workable. very compact on

a screw mount Leica.

[Aoresteen]

Brett,

 

The CV 28mm f/3.5 is very small and very sharp with hardly any fall off. Much better than the Hector, uses 39mm filters.

 

If you want a dinky 28mm lens, the CV 28 f/3.5 is the one to get.

[eliot_rosen]

"The CV 28mm f/3.5 is very small and very sharp with hardly any fall off. Much better than the Hector, uses 39mm filters."

 

The 28/6.3 Hektor was introduced in 1935, and the optical design was never updated. It's not a big surprise that a lens from 65 or so years later would be optically superior. But the construction and workmanship of the 28/6.3 is significantly better and its profile is the smallest of any 28 mm lens of which I am aware.