LEICA 135mm LENSES

[tvagi]

Hi everyone.
some days ago,as i was comparing prices for Leica M-lenses,i noticed that the 135mm are a lot cheaper,comparing with the ones of 35mm,50mm,90mm etc.?
why is that?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nobody loves 'em, and the finder is tiny, so most go to an SLR instead. The only one I like is the 135/2.8 with spectacles, as it brings up the 90 frame, magnified. The 135/3.4 is a much better lens, optically, and smaller and lighter, and the half stop is neither here nor there -- but I like using the 135/2.8 on the M8/M8.2, which doesn't have a 135 frame...

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[ferider]

why is that?

So that those of us, who know how useful that focal length is, in particular on an M3, get a break 🙂

They escaped part of the RF renaissance, neither Bessas nor ZI nor M8 have 135mm framelines in the first place.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Film dino]

Several factors, in no particular order of importance-
-Received wisdom (from Leitz?) is that 135mm is the longest focal length that can be accuratly focussed using the M rangefinder base (viewfinder mag 0.72 & above). This doesn't really answer your question though 🙂. Needs a steady pair of hands to get acceptably sharp handheld shots.. I use a monopod, but that's probably not an RF kind of thing to do..
- 135mm is a bit too long for portraits, though many might disagree-
- the 135mm frame is small. Understatement. Goggles fitted to the 135/ 2.8 magnify this frame at the cost of adding bulk to an already large-ish lens. Could also get a VF magnifier.
- 135mm isn't really a "typical RF" focal length & using one isn't really a "typical RF" approach to photography; I suppose 35s & 50s are ..
- Leica 135s are under-estimated optically. Certainly some on this forum use them to great effect (Mauro, for one)

The 135/4 is a bargain. IMO the latest Apo is not.
David

 

[FPjohn]

Hello:

135mm is a bargain if you also use an accessory brightline finder - otherwise, the view is miniscule. SHOOC if you can find one.

yours
FPJ

 

[literiter]

Several factors, in no particular order of importance-
David

I agree with your post entirely.

I have this lens, and as excellent optically as it is, the usefulness on a RF camera is compromised by it's size and weight. As well, for my purposes, I find the 90mm lens a problem as well.

I use two M bodies, on has a 35mm and the other a 50. For telephoto I have my trusty old Nikon F3 in the trunk with a tripod and a telephoto.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The main reason I sometimes carry an M3 with the 135/2.8 along with my M2's and shorter lenses is that it's a lot lighter than carrying a Leicaflex SL with a 180/2.8. On the rare occasion that I need the "reach" of a 180 I can always crop. It can still be used on the other Leica M bodies.

I've also owned a 135/3.5 Canon and a 135/4 Tele-Elmar, both great lenses, but the Tele-Elmar used the same 39mm filters as a bunch of my other Leitz lenses. Of course the 135 Canon uses the same 48mm filter size as my beloved 85/2 Nikkor.

I'm not a believer in carrying every focal length. 15, 35 or 40, 85 or 90, 180 or 200 is more than enough, and 135 is too inbetween. Its main function is being the longest rangefinder coupled focal length you can buy for an M. Well, there was a 200mm Komura years ago, but try to find one!

A goggled 180mm f/4 could be handled by the Leica M rangefinder with no problem. A Voigtlander version for $599 and the Zeiss edition at $1799. Perhaps a limited edition of 100 pieces, complete with velvet lined mahogany boxes, and engraved "100 Years Since 1910" just because there are idiots who'd pay $5,000 for them...?

 

[tbm]

I bought a used, mint-condition 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar M lens in 1989 and whenever I entered Provia 100 slides captured with that lens in my camera club's slide competition via my incredible Pradovit RT-s projector, "ooh", "wow", and "gosh" utterances arose from various other member's throats as they spontaneously reacted to the amazing quality of the Tele-Elmar's capturing quality. I agree 100% with Brian Bower's opinion about the Tele-Elmar that he gave in his "Leica M Photography" book: "Performance is outstanding even at full aperture. In my opinion this lens is virtually apochromatic standard..."

 

[sanmich]

And I bought a canon 135 f3.5 for peanuts.
Much better lens than I am a photog.
perfectly usable on an M3.

as a matter of fact, the M3 is GREAT for 85mm and 135mm...

 

[Austerby]

I picked up an excellent 135/4 tele-elmar for less than £80 earlier this year and have had a lot of fun with it on my M3 - as well as on my M7. It's good to have the compression effect for landscapes and isolating details. It's not particularly large and the 39mm filter compatibility is useful. Highly recommended.

 

[Tom A]

The 135 falls into that category, too long for somethings and not long enough for others!
With the M's you are pushing the limit of what the rangefinder can safely handle. They are also BIG and bulky (135f2.8) or a bit slow (135f4). The 135f3.4 is also expensive.
Performance though is good (135f2.8) to extremely good (135f4) and really, really good (135f3.4).
Best bang for the buck's is the Tele-Elmar 135f4. It is very sharp even at f4 and you only gain depth of field by stopping it down. You can also unscrew the lens-head and mount it on a Visoflex and it becomes a very sharp"long" macro lens - one of the best you can find. The older Hektor/Elmars are OK, but the 135f4 T-E is a killer medium tele. It also stayed the same over almost 4 decades - no optical changes so wether you buy an early 60's or a late 80's one doesn't matter. Knurling on the barrel was changed at some time, thats about it. It also takes 39mm filters.
The 135f2.8 is rather unyieldy and the prisms in the "goggles" are prone to go out of alignment. It did get a new lease on life with the M8 as it gave you a 170-180mm f2.8 lens. I still dont like it though.

 

[JohnTF]

Hello:

135mm is a bargain if you also use an accessory brightline finder - otherwise, the view is minuscule. SHOOC if you can find one.

yours
FPJ

I liked the lens, though not my favorite, I was kind of chimping and guessing with the frames, but I just got the SHOOC, NIB, what a nice finder, and terrific size, so I guess I will have to try again. ;-)

I also have the same focal length for the Nikon S2, but it came with a generic finder, the varifocal finders remind me of looking the wrong way through binoculars, well, maybe I am looking the wrong way. ;-) I was going to give up until I just tried the lens and it was not quite as rifle sight tight as it had seemed. I did just get the SHOOC in the mail today, it is quite a difference.

I also somehow ended up with some spares, as they came in the box with something I wanted more.

The Hektors seem to optically perform well, but I have naught to compare it with, except the Nikon. I understand they are not difficult to service as well.

At the reasonable prices, you are not going to get hurt in the crossfire to give it a shot, and there are times when the 90 is falling short.

Regards, John

 

[SolaresLarrave]

From what I've seen, long lenses in RF cameras are usually dismissed because a lot of people take these cameras are good for street only. At least, that's my take on the relative unpopularity of the 135 glass.

I just got an Elmar collapsible for my M3, and I'd like to lay hands on a longer one, so as to have all framelines covered. Why not? Besides, they're good lenses.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

IMHO, it’s not the most ideal FL for an M camera.

I had an Apo 135 for nearly ten years (I bought it from a guy who just wanted to unload it). I used it only one time in the summer of 2002 to photograph Amish farmers in Lancaster, PA. Then about a year ago I sold it for exactly what I paid for it (I just wanted to unload it).

I also had an Elmarit-M with the eyes until very recently that I bought specifically to use on my M8. I hated it because it was just too dammed heavy.

I finally decided the 135 FL is not my thing (I’m very happy using my 90 and cropping) - and I suspect I am not alone in that assessment.

There is a reason why they're so hard to sell.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 135 gets in close on a Rangefinder, sometimes closer than its SLR counterpart.

I use a 135 on my M3 and on the Nikon SP. Inexpensive glass, the most I've paid for one is $100. And that was for the "All-Back Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5". Cheapest was $15 for a Canon 135/3.5.

Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5, wide-open.

 

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

Well, I like to use my 2,8/135mm, tough I agree that it is rather heavy. But I enjoy the "feeling" of heavy equipment (beeing used to much larger and heavier gear, all this 35mm things seem to be light to me...).
When I bought it, I used to photograph music concerts. Paired with a M3 it was great for that.
I also used it sometimes with the Visoflex III.
I don't use it very often I must confess, but sometimes I try to pick up gear that gets less use. It exercises me and keeps me on my toes.
People complain even about the size of a Elmar 4/135. Well, what do you say about the zooms most of you probably use on your DSLR's? Can't believe they are smaller/lighter...
Nor are the other 135mm I have or had for my 35mm SLR's...
I just think this focal length is somehow out of fashion, both in RF's and SLR's.
I like it!

Rui

AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY

 

[waileong]

I use 135 on vacation, it's part of my travel kit. Takes the same filters as my 35 and 90 lens, gives me a bit more reach for landscapes.

It's also a splendid portrait lens for daylight use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A couple of 135/2.8 shots with the M8...

I also find it very useful in the mountains but don't have any pics on the web-site from this. (Most of the pics I upload here are from the web-site -- I just copied the images omto the internet computer, hence their small size).

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[Rico]

The TE135 is a dream, but painful to frame with an M4. Solved that problem with SHOOC. 🙂 I also use the TE in Visoflex mode... okay, with a DSLR!

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

I have the TE and the 2.8. I love them both but hardly ever use them.
The 2,8 gets some use for concerts. On a M7 with winder it makes a heavy package but balances very wel.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema