Hektor 135 - True telephoto or not?

[rmeskill]

<p>So reading a few other threads here I came across the mention that the Hektor f4.5 135mm is not a true 'telephoto' lens, but rather just a long normal lens, got me to thinking. Telephoto lenses appear to compress the distances between objects, but normal lenses do not (at least not to the same extent). Since the Hektor is actually a long normal lens, though, is it reasonable to assume it won't distort the distance perspective the way a telephoto lens would, and would actually behave more like a standard 50mm with a larger image circle? I'm not sure how big the difference would be, or even how much it would affect a picture aesthetically, but I thought it would be nice to know...<br /> (On a similar note, I measured my 90mm collapsible Elmar, and it's also over 90mm from the lens elements to the film plane-is it reasonable to presume it also couldn't be considered a telephoto and likewise doesn't cause the distance compression?)</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>Telephoto lenses appear to compress the distances between objects, but normal lenses do not (at least not to the same extent). </em></p>

<p>This is all wrong. To be pedantic, perspective ('compression') is determined only by your distance from the subject. This is in all the books on basic photography. In any case, any 135mm lens on a 35mm camera will have exactly the same perspective, irrespective of whether it is of telephoto construction or not. </p>

<p>A true telephoto lens is simply a lens which is formulated so that its optical center (nodal points) are situated forward of the measured center of the lens. Telephoto construction allows the manufacturers to construct lenses with physical dimensions shorter than their focal lengths.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Maybe, I don't understand the science behind this I always find people to look slightly thinner when using my Zuiko 100mm 2.8 mounted on the Sony Alpha. This in comparison to 42mm and 83mm perspectives.</p>

[simon_bruxelles]

<p>It's probably the reverse effect to when you take a close in photograph of someone with a wide angle lens and they complain they look absolutely enormous. My wife will only have her picture taken using a 600mm lens. </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"perspective ('compression') is determined only by your distance from the subject. This is in all the books on basic photography"</p>

<p>So the perspective is not depending on the focal length of the lens, but rather by the distance proportions between the camera, the subject, and the background. - as per the books, e.g. "Photography 101 Course"</p>

<p>Some well educated people will tell you that you can achieve the same perspective with any lens. Then some will be pushing it... and some over educated people will even tell you not to purchase a telephoto lens, because the lens you have could achieve the same perspective...</p>

<p>I wonder where the common sense was lost in favor of education, to the point of absurd.</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>A very good discussion illustrating how it gets complicated as different people weigh in and use the same term to convey an idea, while in fact the term may technically have a very specific meaning, and it may be different than what the others understand it to mean. "Telephoto" was a fine illustration of this. Sales people and newbies use the term indiscriminately, others use it to convey a generally understood concept, and then there are those who use it in within a very narrow focus of a very specific context. Too bad we couldn't all get together and publish a book ironing out all the nuances....we could make a fortune....if we could ever all agree on the details :-)</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Both the 135mm Hektor and the 90mm Elmar are long-focus lenses, not telephotos. However it makes little difference as far as images go, except that true telephotos may show some pincushion distortion. Few, if any people could tell which type of lens made a photo.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Alex is right-on. By the way, the 135mm 1:4.5 Hektor is by far the best bang for the Leica buck. They can be had for under $100.00 -- great portrait lens, great Visoflex lens!</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Forgot to include photo. . . </p><div></div>

[jason]

<p>It might be bang for your buck, but it ain't a great lens! i have had a few and they are only good(?) for portraits of ageing ladies..i like the lack of weight. Telephotos are always shorter in physical length than long focus.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>My favorite factoid: When the image size is the same, all lenses at the same F stop, have the same depth of field. And the key is all about the distance from the lens.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Jason, if Tony Rowlett was less of a prude, I would respond to your smart-ass remark re: my wife & her doubles partner.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Jason, if Tony Rowlett was less of a prude, I would respond to your smart-ass remark re: my wife & her doubles partner.</p>

[david j.lee]

<p>hey, this is sarting to look like the old leica forum! </p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I agree that the Hector is the best bang for the buck. I like it for the fact that it is a great portrait lens, that its contrast is low and that it's light. I've had almost all Leica 135's , both M & R mounts. The Hector is the only one I keep now. It's a great lens to me.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have to agree with Jason. If you want a long focus Leica 135mm, the Elmar f4 is superior to the Hektor and still very cheap. Although the Elmar is a good lens, it does not have biting sharp rendition. If you want that then you need the 135mm Tele-Elmar or Apo-Telyt. It depends a lot on what you want.</p>

[jason]

<p>Sorry! my comment sent before your photo uploaded. No offense possibly meant ! i stick with my usage..<br>

i am no chicken in years..but sure have the chicken-neck.The lens i have and one previously, were all less sharp than an unknown 135mmlens head, that i found, that needed bellows for use on Visoflex II and III. So if some Soligor from way back when was better..<br>

i like the lightness and carry it more than my 135 Tele-Elmar which is a real lens, if one<em> wants</em> sharp pix.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here is collection of Hockey shots with different focal lengths lenses;<br>

1.2mm;<br>

1.5mm;<br>

5.5mm;<br>

105mm;<br>

135mm.</p>

<p>****The focal lengths used vary by over ONE HUNDRED</p>

<p>*****The perspective varies by how far the camera to the player.*****</p>

<p>One has many taboo things here;</p>

<p>non Leica lenses; digital too, manual focus for sports; cellphone images from 2004 that got printed in a Newspaper; even panning; one has the issue of all were shot thru a dirty hockey glass; no monopod. Most all were shot below the dogma F2.8 folks preach as required for hockey too. One has the taboo subject that the lenses used are mostly from the 1950's; except for the two cellphone shots and the digital shot with a 1999 Walmart P&S. The Inferno player was shot with film from Walmart; it was processed at Walgreens. None of these shots are with equipment folks say you have to use with hockey on photo.net; thus the hornets nest gets hit.</p>

<p>28 dollar LTM Steinheil Culiminar 4 element 3 group "Tessar design" 135mm F4.5 @F5.6; 1/250 second; M3, Tri-x Pensacola player about to kiss the ice; cropped section; about 1/4 the area of a 24x36mm frame; ie about 12mm x 18mm roughly.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-456.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Audiovox cellphone VGA shot; PeeDee player going to the sin bin. 1.5mm focal length at about 1/30 second; cropped and upsized; paneed shot.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-547.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>10.5 cm LTM Nikkor F2.5 @F2.5; M3; 1/250 second. Film 800 Fuji Superia from Walmart; processed at Walgreens<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-406.jpg?t=1275752898" alt="" width="631" height="491" /></p>

<p>5.5mm Olympus P&S 1.3 Megapixel camera from Walmart; 1/114 second at F2.8<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/Oct20ArkansasDezainde.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>1.2 mm focal length lens on a sub VGA Audiovox cellphone; imaged cropepd and upsized. Sensors natural size is about 1/4 VGA is about old BarbieCam; ie about 240x320. exposure about 1/28 second.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-361.jpg?t=1275753594" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a Pensacola Player shot with a 10.5cm F2.5 LTM Nikkor @F4 with an Epson RD-1; full frame (cropped sensor 1.5x) and cropped sections. camera panned with player.<br /> ***The zoomed cropped shots are like if I had a longer focal length lens.<br /> The prospective *stays the same*; a longer lens or a cropped section is just *ess ARC ANGLE covered.*</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/FLYER100.jpg?t=1275753895" alt="" width="100" height="66" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/FLYER200.jpg?t=1275754079" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/FLYER700CROPCROP.jpg?t=1275754241" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/FLYER700CROPCROPCROP.jpg?t=1275754380" alt="" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Tattoo it on your arm that prospective varies by the vantage point.</p>

<p>Ie the subjects distance to your eye doing a painting or sketch; shooting a photo; or a cave mans hunting game 40,000 years ago.</p>

<p>It really has nothing to do with focal length. This is painting 101; Sketching 101, hunting game 101; photography 101.</p>

<p>Folks who get confused or argue about it always inject moving the camera.</p>

<p>If you back away you are moving with respect to the subject; thus you are changing the perspective.</p>

<p>It is not the focal length; rifle finders power; it is your moving that changes the perspective</p>

<p>Folks who get confused often use too long or too short a lens for a subject; and *MOVE* to fill the frame; thus often their brain equates that a wideangle or telephoto changes perspective. It is the movement of vantage point that changes perspective.</p>