Hektor 135mm/f:4,5 LTM

[maxspbr]

Hello.

I need a little advice about the old Hektor 135mm. I got one LTM Hektor (from 1956), with the glass somewhat scratched. But I have, from my grandfather, one Hektor short mount for Visoflex. And the glass is OK.

Can I use the head of M-Mount Hektor in the LTM long-mount?

I don't know how is in other countries, but here in Brazil I never saw an Hektor with glass in a really good shape...

Thanks in advance!

Martin

[doubice]

Hello Martin,

First of all, the serial numbers will have to be close, as there were many versions of the LTM 135mm Hektor. Secondly, the focusing mount or the lens head should be marked with the actual focal length of the lens - this will be a small number engraved close to the infinity mark. If the numbers match, you should be OK.

If the heads physically interchange (some versions have differently located threads), the best way to try would be on an actual camera. Put the camera on a tripod, focus using the rangefinder and take a few pictures at different distances, with both lens heads. When changing the lens heads, make sure that you do not disturb the focusing mount - this is absolutely critical on such a test, particularly on a 135mm lens, which has a very shallow depth of field.

Best,

Jan

[luigi bertolotti]

From the Leitz catalog of 1955-58, appears that the interchanging of lens unit from short mount to long mount is guaranteed, but, as Jan says, this is surely true only for lenses of similar age: in fact, the Leitz above catalog, referring to the long mount (available as standalone item, code ZOOKE) states "When ordering please state serial no. of lens".
But I think that for postwar lenses a problem of differently located threads isn't existing... a note on the catalog declares that lenses from 245.000 to 245.800 and below 241.000 must be returned to factory for fitting in the short mount (ZOOAN) ...absolutely prewar numbers... this makes me think that you can do the focusing tests detailed by Jan, without risk of damaging the threads.

[jc_braconi]

Hi Martin,
I agree with both answers above, now if you have acces to a visoflex you can check the focus on an item on which you have measured the distance on at 1.00m or 2.00 accurately, next check at full aperture the focusing on the barrel from the short mount.
Best wishes.

[doubice]

Originally Posted by jc_braconi

Hi Martin,
I agree with both answers above, now if you have acces to a visoflex you can check the focus on an item on which you have measured the distance on at 1.00m or 2.00 accurately, next check at full aperture the focusing on the barrel from the short mount.
Best wishes.

JC,

I feel that this would not help Martin much. What he has to find out is if the combination of his LTM focusing mount, M lens head and LTM camera focus correctly using the camera's rangefinder. Introducing the Visoflex into the testing eliminates the rangefinder, thus rendering the test rather inaccurate.

Best,

Jan

[jc_braconi]

Hello,
I tried all the combinations even the A36 front lens head and it works, next tried with the M8 also, only the right one does not works ...........it is a dummy one

[maxspbr]

Thanks all for the answers!

Maybe I need give some more information about the set.

The long mount Hektor has serial number 1.408.xxx - A36, lens non-rotating.

The short-mount has serial number 1,214.xxx - E39.

Are the serial numbers close enough?

And yesterday, looking the short-mount after reading these answers, I discovered that the short-mount isn't for Hektor, but probably for Elmar 135mm (f4-f22 in the deep of field markings). Several lenses were sold after my grandfather's death, and of course my grandmother don't know much about Leica lenses... (and the buyer too, if he is with the wrong mount for over 20 years!)

In the short-mount Hektor there isn't markings about true focal length. In the long-mount there is an engraving inside the mount, with the serial number and "135". I asked the seller about this, and he answered that is a technician's marking.

Anyway, I will try some tests - hoping that will work!

Thanks again,

Martin