Leitz Hektor 4.5/135 (1938) lens head on a bellows

[mo]

I finally found my novoflex bellows and decided to try a few lenses on it,first up is my 1938 hektor lens.It has glass seperation issues as you will see in one of the images, even with that issue I believe its a lovely lens to have.
I don't use a bellows all that much,I suppose these should have been on a tripod but I decided to hand hold the bellows.

The photos were taken today in between Rain showers...summer has gone
#1

#2

#3 here you see the reflection from the seperated internal lens....the purplish color.

#4 Focused just inside the curl

#5 Focused on the outside and spider.

[mo]

Just two more ...chasing rain drops on carnations.I was trying to get in focus all the drops but just could not manage it,I think I had the aperture set at F18, this lens goes upto F36 but the light was not good enough to use it.

[scsambrook]

Nice ones - ! Pity about the separation problem, but seems like most of the time it needn't be a serious difficulty.

The Hektor is woefully under-rated, I've had some really pleasing images from mine on a bellows unit.

Now let's start a fight - I say the 135 Hektor rates 8 points out of 10, but the 135 Sonnar rates only 7 points out of 10.

[iangreenhalgh1]

The Hektor and Sonnar are both triplet derivatives, but also quite different in how they render. I'm looking for a cheap Hektor 135 to use just the head on 6x9 - it actually covers 4x5! I bought a Hektor-P projector lens only to discover it was a triplet, not an actual Hektor

I adapted a Jupiter-11 4/135 Sonnar copy for 6x9 and it doesn't fully cover at infinity, but for closer work it is wonderful with the typical Sonnar smoothness. I'm looking forward to being able to compare Sonnar to Hektor on 6x9, then you might get an argument from me. I'd like a Heliar or Pentac too as that's a third derivation of the triplet. I have a beautiful 1908 TT&H Cooke triplet in 142mm that I still need to put in a shutter as well.

J11 on 6x9, wide open at f4:

[dan_]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I just bought a late 50s or early 60s Sonnar 4/135 for Contax, I expect it will outperform my 1970s zebra Sonnar 3.5/135 from Jena. I also have a 1957 Jupiter-11 in Contax that is really excellent, bu even so, I expect the Zeiss version will surpass it. Another lens that would be interesting to throw into the mix is my 1950s Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135 which is a great lens, sharper than my J11.

I admit it, I have way too many 135mms, and it's a length I rarely use, oh dear. I will have to thin the herd sometime.

[mo]

"Them there's fighting words"...
I have the CZJ MC S 3.5/135 and I have to admit its a great lens,it never lets me down, BUT...I also think the same about the Hektor.They are both equal in my eyes in their own way. I have to be fair though, inregards to the Hektor I have used it only on the Pentax and don't get the full range of benefits from it....mid to long distance or is it short to long and I have Mid...

[scsambrook]

I should have been a bit more precise when proposing to start a fight . . . I really was thinking about comparing contemporary lenses. I'd expect a 1970s multi-coated 135/2.8 Sonnar using modern glasses to whup a mid-50s Hektor in several departments. My affection for the Hektor is rooted in its versatility and its 'affable character' which really is quite different to the 1950s Contax Sonnar (and the Russian ones).

[mo]

What Model Sonnar would be most comparable to run against the Hektor? I am not into whose the best as you know, but it would be nice to see a comparision between the two.

[iangreenhalgh1]

1950s Contax Sonnar 4/135 would be comparable, made both in the west and Jena, I have a western one. If the Hektor is pre-war then the pre-war Contax Sonnar 4/135. The Zeiss Triotar 4/135 is also contemporaneous.

[scsambrook]

M0 - the 'perfect comparator' for your lens would indeed be the pre-war Zeiss Sonnar. The Hektor and Sonnar represent quite different design philosophies and comparing them is an exercise which can be enjoyably frustrating.

Leaving aside any mischief about points out of ten, the Sonnar will give 'sharper' and 'brighter' images at mid- and far-distances at full aperture. But, pretty much as usual, things will be almost indistinguishable at f8. The Hektor has what used to be called 'plasticity' - the characteristic of images sliding smoothly out of focus and dissolving pleasantly. We see this particularly when it's used at close distances, something that's a bit hard to get from the rangefinder Sonnar because you can't take off the lens head and put it on the bellows. Those are the reasons why I prefer the Hektor to the contemporary Sonnar for 'my' sort of photography.

In the late 1950s, Leitz abandonned the Hektor and replaced it with another long-focus design, the 135/4 Elmar which, according to them, represented the proverbial 'quantum leap' forward. West German Zeiss kept the basic Sonnar design for the then-new Contarex system but recomputed the 135/4 in the late 1950s around the new glasses that had appeared by then. I've used the Contarex Sonnar in the past and it would be hard to envisage a better lens. And then around 1964 Leitz produced another 135/4, the Tele Elmar, using a modified Sonnar design. I've used that lens too in the past and it's another stunning performer, even on a bellows. These are lenses which have the MTF curves right at the top of the chart, but for some work neither is as useful as the old Hektor.

Like many others, I grew up thinking the 135 Hektor was somehow less good than the 135 Sonnar, but that was a misunderstanding dispelled by actually getting to know it. Like some other Leitz lenses, it has a kind of endearing character all of its own.

[mo]

Thanks for the insight, I hopefully, one day will aquire an Elmar lens of some variation...they seem to be at reasonable prices. The contarex Sonnar on the other hand may be a little harder to obtain.

[scsambrook]

Yes, the Contarex Sonnars do fetch high prices. And I think they're very hard to adapt to other cameras. Up to about a year ago the 1960s 135 Elmar could be bought for reasonable money, but the prices have zooomed sky high now. I live in hope of finding a cheap one, but I'm not holding my breath

[mo]

These were taken this morning with the morning sun,no rain!



And one of the cat...we just got the bookshelf and she had to inspect it.

[Ox Bird]

Those are some really excellent images that you have posted!

I also have a 1938 Leitz Hektor 135mm....also with separation issues. I have used mine for amateur portraits, etc. and have found it to be quite satisfactory. Everyone should have one.

Your idea of using bellow is an interesting one. I will try out your idea!

Thank you for sharing.

[mo]

Hello, When you do try out the bellows please feel free to post up some samples.

The hektor lens head just screws onto my M42 bellows,I don't force it on (perhaps one or two turns only and it starts to grip), and it seems secure,I still am cautious so be careful. I am currently chasing up another bellows adapter that will work better.

Does your 1938 Hektor have a shim in place?

[iangreenhalgh1]

Just got my Sonnar 4/135, with J11 for comparison.

[scsambrook]

Ian, they look very handsome. But tell, me, how do you get the lens heads off them?

[iangreenhalgh1]

You just unscrew them, of course! There's a set screw to loosen, then the entire block comes out.



Of course, it's not intended to be used like this, but no reason why you can't. The Meyer Primotar 4/135 has a removable head as does the Minolta Rokkor-TC 4/135, both of those are designed to have the head removed.

[scsambrook]

Great Stuff - ! Does the Jupiter come apart like the Sonnar? Have you tried the Sonnar on a bellows?

[iangreenhalgh1]

That's a J11 head, an M39 one that I chopped up and crammed into a shutter for use on my Century Graphic. The Sonnar is built the same way, the Russians copied it very closely, but I am not going to meddle with the Sonnar, it's for use on my Contax and J11s are very much more common and much cheaper so if I want to do some playing, it will be with a J11.

You can see how I mutilated the J11 and hacked it's remains into a shutter here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/jupiter-11-4-135-modified-to-fit-alphax-shutter-for-6x9-t64702.html

I guess this counts as using the J11 on bellows:



And here is the result, wide open, Ilford FP4 developed in Kodak DK50:



Stopped down to f22, it doesn't quite cover 6x9, but that's fine, I wanted it for use closeup at large apertures where the creamy smooth Sonnar rendering comes into play.



You can see how the Sonnar performs on my NEX-3 here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-sonnar-4-135-for-contax-on-nex-3-t65402.html

[scsambrook]

Thanks, Ian - that certainly is a bellows ! Your skill with tools is certainly greater than mine.