Leica 135 f4.5, far from a great lens
I have a Leicas Ernst Leitz Hektor 135mm f/4.5 and I have never really liked the result from it. Lens flare as soon as the sun comes out, the colors are dull, soft result (but not in a good way according to me).
Well, the people at leicarumors made a review, and its pretty good review, so I thought some of you might like to read it. Check it out: http://leicarumors.com/2011/03/14/le...s-review.aspx/
I think that review is very unfair. First off, it's done completely in the digital realm. Second off, it's being compared to a modern Leica lens which sells for thousands more! My Hektor is a very good and sharp lens for how little they cost. Who uses a 135 with a Leica anyway?!
I have this lens and I kinda like it, although admittedly I've never used it in colour. It is flare-prone, it's not dead sharp, but on the whole I find I get images I like from it anyway. I've mostly used it indoors with fast film, which mitigates the flare problems.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Though the Soviet Jupiter 11 is smaller, cheaper (probably) faster (f/4.0), *very probably* sharper (mine is very sharp), isn't especially prone to flare and has a wonderful "Zeisish" look to boot!
A good example of what Zeiss was up to already in the 1930's. Admittedly, as with all SU/FSU equipment, buying one is a bit of Russian roulette (pun intended), but basically I see no reason to go for the Hector.
Not everything Leica made was solid gold and especially earlier lenses tended to be far behind Zeiss.
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
I use my Tele Elmar 135 quite often and absolutely love it. Did own a Hektor a while back but it was a fight and not worth it most of the time. All 135s, aside from the Hektor, are fabulous lenses and dirt cheap today (not the newer APO obviously). If you can focus correctly, which can be a challenge at times, they are spectacular for portraits and landscape.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'll make no attempt hide my disdain for these idiot rumor sites.
They're about as accurate as the Jan. 1 psychics who make their annual predictions. They're bound to get something right once in a while.
I would give no credence to anything that they have to say, including a product review.
You did not like because your lens have a problem or you could not see the quality. If your lens in perfect condition and you dont like it , I bet you are a holga photographer.
Well, i dont see the problem to use digital here to compare the two lenses. One is 50 years old then the other one, and a price different of 2000 euro but I think its faire to use them in a comparison as long as this is given. So i dont see the test as "look how much better this lens is" but instead just to see what a modern lens give VS a 50 year old lens (they had to pick a lens so why not go with what exist today).
Originally Posted by softshock
Thats cool, i have actually never used it indoor, have to try that out. On the other hand not that oftan I have a situuation that demands a 135 indoor... but that only means I have to come up with one.
Originally Posted by ntenny
Well, i dont like the rummors, but you can look at the images and just judge the result, thats what I did.... a test is a test
Originally Posted by elekm
Do you have any constructive to say or cant you just understand English? I dont tink my lens has a problem, but personal I decide what is quality and not the letters that are printed on the front of the lens. This lens is 50 years old, it will not be the quality we expect of Leica today. I use Leica but that dosent mean that I like every thing that comes out from the Leica factory, for example the M5 and M6 I never liked, nor did I like the M8 or any of the R1-6, and there are some lenses that I just didnt like the look they gave. Stop being such a brand whore when it comes to Leica. Somehow you have got stuck on the idea that everything that Leica do is super quality and a mark of luxury which its fare from. I hope you enjoy your canon eos 1000 + ef 35-70 and your "fuji 10 dollar camera"
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
And for the Holga remark, I have seen better photographs from people using Holgas than I have seen from certain Leica brand wh%re, so certainly equipment is not everything.
Take the review for what it is, personal i never liked the color rendering nor the soft image the 135 liked and I thought i could be fun to see a comparison of a 50 year or lens to a modern.
there are some lenses that I just didnt like the look they gave
for example the M5 and M6 I never liked
I have seen better photographs from people using Holgas than I have seen from certain Leica brand
so certainly equipment is not everything.
You are a Holga photographer not more.
I thought i could be fun to see a comparison of a 50 year or lens to a modern
Seriously, a little respect towards other people and their opinions will do you no harm. If you really believe what you say, then you should back up your statements with according photographs to prove your point.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac