Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have observed the more expensive the lens, the tighter the machining.  These lenses are silky smooth when the lubricant is right.  You have not had the lens from new, so you don't know if the grease has ever been changed.  But even the best grease can stiffen with age.  If you want to try DIY, you might check out Richard Haw's general suggestions on lens repair (richardhaw.com).  I have found that the hardest part is getting the helical to thread back together correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello Friends....

Here is the Hektor after CLA'd for DAG. 

BTW I cant find the date it was made...Summilux.net give me an "?"' as answer...

any advice about this??

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Don did a good job on the CLA on this lens. Can you post an overall picture of the lens? I have several versions of this lens, and I regret selling my all black one that was in near mint condition and with the parallel focusing mount for the Agfa color system. My other two have mixed black/chrome mounts. One of my Hektors has serial No. 97,XXX in black and nickel distance scale in meters. It has a rotating mount. The other one is No. 166,XXX in a black and chrome mount, with the non-rotating, parallel focusing mount, from 1933. It has the locator "pip" for the Agfa color system as well. These lenses are quite heavy, most likely from the brass used in the mount, and the relatively large lens elements (6 elements in 3 groups) especially compared to the more popular 9cm Elmar lens.

Production began in 1931 with 121 units. The first recorded lens serial numbers in Laney and the Leica Collector's Guide start with No. 156,001 in 1933, so your lens would most likely have come from the 1932 period, with 1,923 units produced.

Looking closely, I can see some evidence of etching in the center of the lens, and also a number of bubbles in the glass. This was very common with early lenses (bubbles) at both Leitz and Zeiss. At one point, Zeiss felt compelled to put out a monograph on how bubbles in the lens glass was the mark of a high quality lens! Eventually the process of glass production was able to eliminate this indicator of a quality lens 🙂

The Hektor was the first telephoto lens made for the interchangeable Model I(C) Leica, which was introduced in 1931 in standardized mount. It continued in production until 1946. 7,225 units were produced. It was a decent high speed lens at f/1.9, which was needed with the very slow emulsions at the time it was introduced.

Edited by derleicaman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your lens is from production lot 129001-130000, 1932. There were 11 recorded lots ( for the 73 Hektor) earlier than this, with the first at 94140. Uncoupled lenses exist, in the early 94xxx, 96xxx and 97xxx lots. These are small lots prior to larger production. As a timing point, it may help to know that factory records show lens 97156 was delivered on Dec. 19, 1931 as uncoupled, and returned to be updated with standard coupling on Mar. 3, 1932.   97191 is the highest uncoupled lens I have seen.

Edited by alan mcfall
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alan mcfall said:

Your lens is from production lot 129001-130000, 1932. There were 11 recorded lots ( for the 73 Hektor) earlier than this, with the first at 94140. Uncoupled lenses exist, in the early 94xxx, 96xxx and 97xxx lots. These are small lots prior to larger production. As a timing point, it may help to know that factory records show lens 97156 was delivered on Dec. 19, 1931 as uncoupled, and returned to be updated with standard coupling on Mar. 3, 1932.   97191 is the highest uncoupled lens I have seen.

Hello Alan, my lens 97167 is coupled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the uncoupled 98678, which I also regret having sold at Westlich in 2016.
I only have an all black 141603 coupled which I refuse to sell

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PG Black nickel said:

I had the uncoupled 98678, which I also regret having sold at Westlich in 2016.
I only have an all black 141603 coupled which I refuse to sell

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

This is exactly what my all black lens looked like, complete with the hood and cap, plus it was in the original red lens tube. Why did I sell it?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have these unpaired Hektor 7,3. One of the first products bears the number 96538 or very late 566047. This last one is not included in the list. According to Lager, who had never seen such a high serial number on a Hektor 7.3, the hypothesis is that it was made for a projector, but this hypothesis would be excluded by the correct presence inside the diaphragm blades.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote above, I had the Hektor, bought in the Westlicht auction about 7 years ago and sold through Westlicht a couple of years ago for a similar price to part fund the purchase of a Thambar-M (which was a long term 'want'). I bought the Hektor for portraits, but didn't use it that much, so don't regret selling it. It was a novelty for a while, but my use dropped off.  I use the Thambar more (but not frequently), perhaps because I prefer 90mm for simple portraits (i.e. not environmental portraits), and I thank that is where that sort of soft focus works best. I don't need both, though the Hektor is the cheaper way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for illustration

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leitz HEGRA 7.3cm f1.9 Hektor from 1933 on Leica III (black with chrome furniture) from 1937 with MOOLY winder and SAIOO folding 7.3 cm viewfinder and case for finder. This rig is extremely heavy. I had to use a 50mm Elmar to balance the HEGRA for the photo. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

William

Edited by willeica
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2022 at 1:52 AM, bobkatz said:

Hello Friends....

Here is the Hektor after CLA'd for DAG. 

BTW I cant find the date it was made...Summilux.net give me an "?"' as answer...

any advice about this??

 

 

My one is really very close to yours : 129006 - probably manufactured few days before... 🙂 But apparently does not look identical... can you post a picture by side ? 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...