Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: M-135 differences
From: cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:38:40 -0400 (EDT)

Paul and group,

And if you think the f/4s are bargains, look at the f/4.5 Hektor.  Image
quality is absolutely superb!  I made a photograph of George Pataki,
campaigning, with a Hektor.  I understand my gallery sold an exhibition
print I made to his highest cabinet-level official.  The image (I look at it
every day at my desk - and I don't even sit on the same side of the
political fence) is just stunning.  It was made on TMY at a middling aperture.

I owned a late (sn/3,4XX,XXX) Tele-Elmar-M and felt the image quality fell
far short of the Hektor at middle apertures (lower contrast - I was actually
afraid to admit this publicly, but it appears to be the truth).

Curt

>Marc,
>
>My comment was based on the fact that these seem to be so inexpensive 
>used. I had meant to say that you could find one in excellent shape for 
>_well under_ $600, which is pretty cheap for a recent-vintage Leica lens. 
>OTOH, users of other camera marques would be horrified at paying this 
>much for an f/4 135. The f/4 135mm (non-tele) Elmarit is even more of a 
>bargin.
>
>- Paul
>
>
>

Elizabeth Mei Wong
Birding with Berkshire County's Hoffman Bird Club or
             Women Outdoors at http://members.aol.com/womenout/index.htm

Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A.

Pittsfield, Massachusetts
In the Berkshires, next door to Tanglewood