The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica Hektor 135/4.5 on G1

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Hi !

I have the possibility to buy a mint Leica Hektor 135/4.5 (not the black one unfortunately), but I am a little worried about fitting it to the G1

It is said to have M-mount, which means it was for viewfinder cameras, right ?
I read sometimes that that implies that it will not focus to infinity ??
Would that apply to the G1 as well, or only to true reflex cameras ??

And, I found lots of adaptors for M to µ4/3 in the adaptorlist.
Which one(s) do you recommend ?

Would anybody here have pics from the combination Hektor - G1?

Thanks for your input !
Rafael
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Thanks for your input, Ray.

I have read a bit about this lens, and it will (hopefully) do what I expect : deliver beautifull bokeh. I'm not looking for absolute sharpness for this lens, quite the contrary ;)

But my concern is more about if and how to combine it with the G1.
Especially, the adaptor and the focus range ...

So, if any user here has info on that ...

C U
Rafael
 
O

OzRay

Guest
Well, if it's a standard M mount, then with the right adapter, you won't have a problem. I have a number of Voigtlander lenses and use a Voigtlander M mount adapter with my Pen, so if you get one of these, it will work 100%. There are other similar and cheaper adapters around as well and they seem to be OK.

Cheers

Ray
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Would anybody here have pics from the combination Hektor - G1?
I showed this one a long time ago (~1 year ago) (Mounted using the first m4/3rds to Leica adapter):

 

madmaxmedia

New member
Just to add- the infinity focus problems are only with reflex cameras. The flange to sensor distance of Micro 4/3 is shorter than Leica M mount, so no worries.

Wide angle rangefinder (and C-Mount) lenses tend to have some smearing at the edges, but not normal and telephoto lenses. So I think if you have a good adapter you should get perfect results with this on a G1 (of course with 2x crop.)
 
O

OzRay

Guest
So I think if you have a good adapter you should get perfect results with this on a G1 (of course with 2x crop.)
It's not a crop, it's simply a 2x effective increase in the focal length, from that stated on the lens, and subsequent narrowing of the field of view. :)

Cheers

Ray
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It is a crop. There is no increase of focal length.

BTW, now, I prefer the pen F 150/4 over the Hektor.

The 100/3.5 Pen F lens is even a better choice when compactness/light weightedness is a factor.
 
O

OzRay

Guest
It is a crop. There is no increase of focal length.

BTW, now, I prefer the pen F 150/4 over the Hektor.

The 100/3.5 Pen F lens is even a better choice when compactness/light weightedness is a factor.
It makes much more sense, is easier to understand and is more accurate, to say that the effective focal length doubles (when using lenses designed for 35mm film on 4/3s). There is a narrowing of the angle of view, equivalent to that of a lens with an effective focal length of twice the actual lens focal length, it's not a 2x crop. The sensor also is not cropped, it is what it is.

This is the only way that I've found for many people to actually understand what effect using lenses designed for 35mm has when used on 4/3s. Then again, some people refuse to look at it this way and I often feel that I'm... :deadhorse:.

Cheers

Ray
 

apicius9

New member
Not sure if this adds anything, but I tested mine out briefly before I sent it out for a thorough overhaul and it seemed to work nicely on the G1. However, I have the M39 version, and I am using a m39 - c-mount adapter to connect it to the Hawk c-mount adapter on the G1.

I also got the impression that it is not exactly a crisp picture but I wanted to wait with my final judgement until after cleaning it. While I picked this one up on ebay, it has sentimental value in the way that I was born in Wetzlar and almost everyone in my family has worked for the original Leitz company in Wetzlar at some point in their lives. That particular lens was made in 1938, the year my mother was born and my Grandfather worked in the camera dep. of Leitz.

Stefan
 
O

OzRay

Guest
Not sure if this adds anything, but I tested mine out briefly before I sent it out for a thorough overhaul and it seemed to work nicely on the G1. However, I have the M39 version, and I am using a m39 - c-mount adapter to connect it to the Hawk c-mount adapter on the G1.

I also got the impression that it is not exactly a crisp picture but I wanted to wait with my final judgement until after cleaning it. While I picked this one up on ebay, it has sentimental value in the way that I was born in Wetzlar and almost everyone in my family has worked for the original Leitz company in Wetzlar at some point in their lives. That particular lens was made in 1938, the year my mother was born and my Grandfather worked in the camera dep. of Leitz.

Stefan
If it was the worst ever lens made by Leitz, that's good enough reason to own one regardless. Not many can claim that sort of association with any product.

Cheers

Ray
 

madmaxmedia

New member
When I explain it to people, I use the same terminology- equivalent or effective focal length. Whether it makes more sense, I would say it does to a beginner. Is it more 'accurate'? I don't think so- it's a good shortcut. In OP's case, it was quicker for me to type 'crop factor' because I was pretty certain he already was aware of it. ;)

The term 'crop' is not referring to cropping the sensor, but the image circle of the lens (though I guess you probably knew this is what I meant.)

Certain photographic concepts make more sense IMO when you get beyond just using 'equivalent' FOV and deal with the actual focal lengths, such as DOF.

It makes much more sense, is easier to understand and is more accurate, to say that the effective focal length doubles (when using lenses designed for 35mm film on 4/3s). There is a narrowing of the angle of view, equivalent to that of a lens with an effective focal length of twice the actual lens focal length, it's not a 2x crop. The sensor also is not cropped, it is what it is.

This is the only way that I've found for many people to actually understand what effect using lenses designed for 35mm has when used on 4/3s. Then again, some people refuse to look at it this way and I often feel that I'm... :deadhorse:.

Cheers

Ray
 
O

OzRay

Guest
When I explain it to people, I use the same terminology- equivalent or effective focal length. Whether it makes more sense, I would say it does to a beginner. Is it more 'accurate'? I don't think so- it's a good shortcut. In OP's case, it was quicker for me to type 'crop factor' because I was pretty certain he already was aware of it. ;)

The term 'crop' is not referring to cropping the sensor, but the image circle of the lens (though I guess you probably knew this is what I meant.)

Certain photographic concepts make more sense IMO when you get beyond just using 'equivalent' FOV and deal with the actual focal lengths, such as DOF.
Yes, I knew what you meant, but I've found that talking to even reasonably knowledgable photographers in terms of effective focal length makes things easier to understand; that applies whether you're talking about 4/3s, APS or even MF sensors.

The confusing thing when you say you're doing a 2x crop, of a larger image circle, isn't something intuitive to comprehend, because most people associate 2x with magnifying things - two times. :thumbup:

DoF becomes another issue altogether, because the DoF doesn't remain the same, or become shallower, when using the same focal length lens with smaller sensors. :confused:

Then there is the age old debate about whether the f stop of a lens changes when used with different sized sensors. :banghead:

Cheers

Ray
 

kai.e.g.

Member
A lens doesn't magicaly change focal lengths when mounted on a medium format, 35mm or 4/3rds body. That's obvious, because whilst mounting the lens to the camera, the lens itself does not melt & change to become something else. In the same way, a 12 inch ruler does not become 24 inches long when viewed close to one's nose, nor does it become 3 inches long when viewed from down the street.

Nor does a lens become faster & slower depending upon the body it's mounted to. That's simply not a debatable topic at all - people who do debate such things are poorly informed.

To me, it's always been easier to explain the field of view change for a given lens from a 35mm body to a 4/3rds (or whatever) body in terms of a crop. Draw a rectangle roughly the size of a 35mm frame, draw a little stick figure & a tree inside it, then draw another frame within it to represent the 4/3rds frame. The concept is really clear that way, and doesn't fool people into thinking that their equipment possesses special magic morphing powers that are better left to Manga comics :)
 

madmaxmedia

New member
Hi Ray,

As Kai says, things start to get sticky when you use the 'equivalent focal length' term with these other details.

For example, DOF doesn't change at all if you are referring to actual focal length, regardless of the sensor size. The image characteristics of the lens does not vary depending on the sensor. DOF only changes when you refer to 'equivalent focal length'.

I still do the 2x shortcut in my head, because I am used to thinking in terms of 35mm full frame (like most of us are). But I had to let go of it at one point to better grasp DOF of different lenses. In terms of DOF, you don't want to use 'equivalent' because DOF actually does not change with different sensor sizes. So it's very much 6 of one, half dozen of the other, once you go beyond the pure snapshooter mentality and really want to understand more.

Of course, we're all batting around the same stuff here anyway.

Cheers


DoF becomes another issue altogether, because the DoF doesn't remain the same, or become shallower, when using the same focal length lens with smaller sensors. :confused:

Then there is the age old debate about whether the f stop of a lens changes when used with different sized sensors. :banghead:

Cheers

Ray
 
Top