Hi everyone,

I heard that Hektor lens from the 1930's (minus the brilliant Mountain Elmar) are weak shooting glass. Is this true and what is the proper explanation for the supposedly inferior optics? In what cases does one choose to utilize such 1930's lens. Just to have a retro look?

Also when would one choose to use with a Leica A or an early Leica from the 1920's or 1930's? Does anyone shoot professionally with early screw mount cameras still in the business?

sincerely, Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 05, 2001

Answers

The one time I saw HC-B photographing, it was London in the 1980s, and he was using a Summar from the '30s. I couldn't tell if it was coated. My own choice is the last of the f:3.5/50mm Elmars.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 05, 2001.

An interesting link that briefly discusses the legendary 'Leica Glow' of the earlier lenses has been posted here before:

http://members.aol.com/abreull/htm/08.htm

As well as the lens design, I suppose the increased flare and lower contrast from uncoated pre-war lenses might be exploited artistically.

Some street photographers reportedly use screwmount Leicas because of the smaller, less obtrusive bodies (or even the psychlogical effect of using an 'antique' that is less likely to be taken seriously). And the LTMs are much more pocketable than the M series (a III-IIIf body is longer than, say, a Yashica T4, but about the same height and width).

-- Richard Williams (richardw@icr.ac.uk), November 05, 2001.

At risk of sounding flip-its a free world, you don't need a case to shoot with a 1930s lens.

Note however that back in the 1930s and until the 1950s the consensus was that Zeiss Contax had the better glass by far. You could also argue that they had the better bodies in the Contax II and Contax III, which were thus arguably also 20 years ahead of their time.

Leica's glory years were from the late 1920s to about 1936, when Contax came into the market with their futuristic cameras and then again, with the introduction of the M3, from 1954 to about 1959 when Nikon F SLRs started pounding them into the dust, price and functionality wise.

Please pardon the insufficiently reverential language :-)

BTW, HC-B used Zeiss Sonnars also, retrofitted to his Leica, in earlier years.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 05, 2001.

I have just bought a IIIa with uncoated Summar and am very pleased with the results on slide film. When I get some more B+W pix, I shall post them here. I also purchased a Fikus hood. Yes, the contrast is noticeably lower than a modern Leica lens, but then that can actually be an advantage in very bright light. Resolution seemed good. As this lens is available very cheaply (mine was free with the camera), it would be worth geting one and experimenting, either on a LTM or with an adaptor.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), November 05, 2001.

I use a Leica III all the time mainly fitted with the f2 Summar - IMHO for black and white as good as anything unless you want to blow up to 40x30inches

I also use 35mm, and 90mm Elmars and a 135mm Hektor (all 1936 and uncoated) although the latter only rarely. I used it exclusively at 1/500th when photgraphing a bullfight in Seville a couple of years ago. Good sharp neagtives but lacking the contrast of modern lenses.

In my opinion the only disadvantage of pre-war Leica lenses is the fact that there is less contrast but as someone has said you can use this to advantage. I have sent some of my pictures to other photographers in South Africa and the USA and they have both said that they are as sharp as their Summicrons. I print on MGIV warmtone using a Heiland Splitgrade which helps bring up the contrast. I only use XP2.

I have just been looking, using an 8x Peak lupe, at a Summar pic taken at f2 in the rain in Verona and I cannot fault the performance of the lens.

If you have a pre war Leica then it is a real pocket camera with top potential and a piece of engineering to be admired and enjoyed.

Good luck.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), December 05, 2001.

Of course, one reason to use old lenses would be to photograph in a style reminiscent of, or consistent with, the photos of that period.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 05, 2001.