Removing the 135mm frame-line in the M4

F

Frankie

Speaking Frankly
Local time
1:23 PM
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
752
Location
Vancouver Canada
View My Gallery
I am contemplating removing the 135mm frame-line in an M4, leaving only the 35/50/90mm...the 135mm is useless in a rangefinder anyway.

This is standard in an M2 and an option available in the Leica "a la carte" program but I don't want to pay $5000.

I understand the M4 frame-line is made from thin metal plates. If so, blocking out the 135mm frame-line should be simple enough...especially during a CLA.

Any experiences?
 
Frankie said:
Ithe 135mm is useless in a rangefinder anyway.
Click to expand...

Says who? The 135mm is an excellent lens with a rangefinder. Plus, they're the best value for money Leica lenses around. My Tele-elmar cost peanuts (less than USD120), takes 39mm filters, is lightweight and compact and produces great results. I'm a fan.
 
I agree that 135mm lenses are lame on a M. I know that the 135 lenses can be bought in slightly different sizes but none of them are 'compact' as far as Rf lenses go 🙂 The 135 focal length just seems better served on a SLR imo.
 
Peanuts? I can see that... but only with old Hektors 135 f4.5. I've seen them priced for less than $80 and I know of someone nabbing one for half that much off the auction site.

The Tele-Elmar 135 is a remarkable lens, according to the die-hard Leicaphiles. I would like one, but the newest, pre-APO version (with a 46mm flter thread). In the meanwhile, in terms of Leica lenses, these TEs are relatively inexpensive.

And, BTW, I wouldn't do anything but send the camera to Don Goldberg or Sherry Krauter if I wanted to get rid of the 135mm framelines. However, don't ditch them that easy, as they can be used as ways to level your camera and exposure the same way you'd use a gridline with an SLR. 🙂
 
The better way to use a 135mm on an M (if one must) is to get the 135mm Elmarit with goggles. Bulky, but it fills the 90mm framelines with the 135mm FOV. A decent lens, too. I use the R version.

I concur: Don or Sherry for frameline removal.
 
I wouldn't do it. There is a bunch of really great 135mm lenses out there, from the Nikkor Sonnar, over the Mandler Tele Elmar, to the Komura 135/2.8 Ernostar design. Plus, as Francisco said, the 135 corners help in composing with 35mm.

135 + 50 used to be a very popular combo - just not so trendy at the moment. No surprise since the trend is largely determined by cropped DRFs.

If you want to do it, DAG/Sherry/Steve's can do it easily as part of a CLA.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
maajka said:
Frankie, if you find out how much it costs please write it here, I'm interested as well.
Click to expand...

I found out that doing the deed along with a CLA is only nominal cost...from a recommend specialist mentioned in this thread.

This person would actually swap/trade an M2 part with the corresponding M4 part.

However, I have also won on the Bay today a late model M2...just a couple thousand shy of the ending serial number...so I won't have a need now nor a burning desire to buy an M4 just for the surgery.

The 135mm is useless primarily because of the effective base being too short...the cost of the lens is immaterial. In my profession, there is a thing called f/b ratio which is used to indicate exaggeration in distance measurement error. The 135mm ends up to be ~2.7 which is very high, as compared to a low of ~0.7 in a 35mm...shorter yet for wider angle lens.

Besides, I own a ZM which is clean in the view finder. One frame at a time is far better than the six sets of markings from M4-P onwards. Leica a la carte is too expensive especially when all I want to remove the excess.

This M2 will find usage along with my well beaten-up Nikon F2...no self-respecting thief will bother stealing it.
 
Frankie said:
...the 135mm is useless in a rangefinder anyway.
Click to expand...

i would have agreed with you a few months ago, then i shot a roll of K64 with a 135mm f4 Elmar that i got with an M3. i have a couple of them and never used them until now. i wish i would have discovered it years ago...
bob

edit--oops, replaced picture with the one i meant to upload.
 

Attachments

  • 012_12A.jpg
    012_12A.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
When I was younger, I want to see far...so I favour telephoto lenses. A 300mm was not too long for my mind's eye, so I use an F2.

As I grow older, I tend to see what is closer to me...I gradually use wider and wider lenses; but never ventured beyond 24mm.

Now that I am a senior citizen [in some jurisdictions] I want simple and light weight...mobility. A rangefinder appeals to me. Anything else is far too bulky.

I still have an arsenal of F2's and FM's...and 22 lenses. I have long learned to use my mind as a light meter. Digital is appealing only because I can travel with my dark room...a computer.

I can process B/W film using a changing bag and liquid chemistry in a hotel room. My best friend is a printing artist..."a negative is the score, the print is the performance". I can wait till I got home.

Finally, an M2...rediscovering a simpler youth that I wish I had known.
 
Last edited:
Well then I wish the OP had stated his personal preference earlier rather than simply castigating the principle of 135mm lenses on Ms. The f/b ratios appear to be trounced by the photos produced by actual users of these lenses and I am pleased that people such as Dr Mandler clearly did not share such a prejudice and designed fine lenses that deserve to be used.

135mm lenses may not be fashionable, but they are relatively inexpensive and quite capable of producing excellent images. They may not be for you on a rangefinder, but they're not useless.
 
Last edited:
The two things you wil get out of this modification are (1) a bill for doing it and (2) decreased resale value if you later sell the camera. I'd leave it alone, but it's your camera!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom