thawkins
Well-known
Do any of my fellow RF forum members use 135 mm lens on a Leica M system camera? If so, what are the pros and cons of this focal length on an RF camera?
135mm for M3
- Thread starter thawkins
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 18
- Views 3K
Robert Lai
Well-known
No disadvantages to 135mm besides the fact that the viewfinder frame is small, and you need to hold the camera very steady, as the longer focal length magnifies motion.
Having tried several of the 135mm lenses from the Elmar f/4 of the 1960s to the Apo-Telyt, I would say that the easiest to shoot is the f/2.8 ELmarit. This is a big (for rangefinder) lens, made bigger by the magnification goggles.
However, the magic is in those goggles. They magnify the viewfinder, so that you now use the 90mm lines for framing (easier with the bigger frames), AND in so doing also increase the focusing accuracy.
There are two other advantages to this lens:
At f/2.8, it has the fastest speed for a 135mm rangefinder lens. This makes the lens a creamy bokeh machine.
Also, since most people are put off by the lens' bulk, the lens is available at relatively low cost, for a Leica lens. If you can get past the initial impression of its outward appearance, you will be richly rewarded.
Having tried several of the 135mm lenses from the Elmar f/4 of the 1960s to the Apo-Telyt, I would say that the easiest to shoot is the f/2.8 ELmarit. This is a big (for rangefinder) lens, made bigger by the magnification goggles.
However, the magic is in those goggles. They magnify the viewfinder, so that you now use the 90mm lines for framing (easier with the bigger frames), AND in so doing also increase the focusing accuracy.
There are two other advantages to this lens:
At f/2.8, it has the fastest speed for a 135mm rangefinder lens. This makes the lens a creamy bokeh machine.
Also, since most people are put off by the lens' bulk, the lens is available at relatively low cost, for a Leica lens. If you can get past the initial impression of its outward appearance, you will be richly rewarded.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I currently have an Hektor 135 on my bag. No issues and love the lens. mostly use it aroung F/8 so dont really notice soft corners, vignetting or falloff.
Also have the Elmarit 135, but, strange enough, havent use it yet after having it for 1 year. Dont really use that focus length that much and when I need tele, normally grab the Elmarit 90 or the Hektor.
Regards.
Marcelo
Test shoot
I think is was probably done at f/8
Regards
Marcelo
Also have the Elmarit 135, but, strange enough, havent use it yet after having it for 1 year. Dont really use that focus length that much and when I need tele, normally grab the Elmarit 90 or the Hektor.
Regards.
Marcelo
Test shoot
I think is was probably done at f/8
Regards
Marcelo
Last edited:
presspass
filmshooter
What Robert and Roger said. The 135 2.8 is a very special lens. Although I have other options in that focal length, I use the 2.8 every week. It's bulky, slow to focus, and heavy. But the photos are worth it. There are several lenses I wouldn't be without and this one leads the pack.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
135 Elmar
135 Elmar
I have the 90 Elmar and Elmarit, but the best bang for the buck,
and I think maybe the best, is the 135 for portraits.
135 Elmar
I have the 90 Elmar and Elmarit, but the best bang for the buck,
and I think maybe the best, is the 135 for portraits.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
What? no love for the Hektor? 😛
thawkins
Well-known
I currently have an Hektor 135 on my bag. No issues and love the lens. mostly use it aroung F/8 so dont really notice soft corners, vignetting or falloff.
Also have the Elmarit 135, but, strange enough, havent use it yet after having it for 1 year. Dont really use that focus length that much and when I need tele, normally grab the Elmarit 90 or the Hektor.
Regards.
Marcelo
Test shoot
I think is was probably done at f/8
Regards
Marcelo
Does the Hektor have coated glass?
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I think mine has. There is a violet hue on the lens so maybe it is.
Not really sure if it was originally coated or later done.
Regards.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I use a 135 Elmarit on my M3 and more recently on my A7s.
Its just the right focal length for the majority of my equestrian shots .
Its just the right focal length for the majority of my equestrian shots .
Michael Markey
Veteran
Why are there two threads on this ...
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I suppose OP duplicated the post?
Confussed me a bit when I posted.
Confussed me a bit when I posted.
skucera
Well-known
I too use a 135 mm Tele-Elmar-M, though rarely. My M3 has frame lines for it, so I simply put it on and I've got a tiny rectangle for framing in the middle of the viewfinder.
Pros: since the Tele-Elmar-M is the "newest" lens design of the lenses that my wife's grandfather bought with the camera. This lens is tack sharp with aperture openings around f4-5.6. The focusing is also easy, since the rangefinder patch is still the same size as with any other lens, and the focus indexing is right on. Also, it does pretty well for close-ups, focusing to 1 meter, which looks pretty big and close up in the photos afterward.
(This lens is the "newest" lens design of the old lenses that I received, because it was bought after the rest of the kit was put together. Joe bought the M3 and it original telescoping Summicron 50 mm lens new in 1955, then bought a 35 mm Summaron with goggles in 1956 and a used 90 mm Elmar LTM that year too. In 1967, just before a European vacation, he bought the Tele-Elmar-M in black, instead of chrome like the camera and all the other accessories. He also bought a new Leica-Meter MR at the same time, even though he had a perfectly good Leica-Meter MC. I digress... the other lenses were designed in the same time frame as he original M3, except for the 90 mm Elmar that was made in 1952, but the Tele-Elmar-M was introduced in 1965 and benefited from computerized design newly available to Leica in the mid-Sixties, and its greater detail and contrast show it.)
Cons: not many, except that despite the frame line, it's still tricky to imagine the final composition graphically because our eyes see everything outside the frame line, so it takes some imagination and mental discipline to compose only what is inside the frame line (for me) and now what's around it.
Try a 135 mm lens out and see for yourself if you like it or not.
Scott
Pros: since the Tele-Elmar-M is the "newest" lens design of the lenses that my wife's grandfather bought with the camera. This lens is tack sharp with aperture openings around f4-5.6. The focusing is also easy, since the rangefinder patch is still the same size as with any other lens, and the focus indexing is right on. Also, it does pretty well for close-ups, focusing to 1 meter, which looks pretty big and close up in the photos afterward.
(This lens is the "newest" lens design of the old lenses that I received, because it was bought after the rest of the kit was put together. Joe bought the M3 and it original telescoping Summicron 50 mm lens new in 1955, then bought a 35 mm Summaron with goggles in 1956 and a used 90 mm Elmar LTM that year too. In 1967, just before a European vacation, he bought the Tele-Elmar-M in black, instead of chrome like the camera and all the other accessories. He also bought a new Leica-Meter MR at the same time, even though he had a perfectly good Leica-Meter MC. I digress... the other lenses were designed in the same time frame as he original M3, except for the 90 mm Elmar that was made in 1952, but the Tele-Elmar-M was introduced in 1965 and benefited from computerized design newly available to Leica in the mid-Sixties, and its greater detail and contrast show it.)
Cons: not many, except that despite the frame line, it's still tricky to imagine the final composition graphically because our eyes see everything outside the frame line, so it takes some imagination and mental discipline to compose only what is inside the frame line (for me) and now what's around it.
Try a 135 mm lens out and see for yourself if you like it or not.
Scott
Last edited:
Richard G
Veteran
I've had since the 1980s and almost sold on consignment a mint Tele Elmar f4. This has come into its own on the M9, but especially with the SHOOC external finder. Focus in camera, frame and shoot with the finder: it's wonderful. Much easier to 'see' 135 focal length shots this way. I tried going out with that lens alone for a day. It wasn't terrible. Good to have in the bag for some projects. Stays at home mostly. You read rubbish about it not focussing accurately on an M9: this is wide open at f4—
L1002052.jpg by Richard, on Flickr
L1002052.jpg by Richard, on FlickrRobert Lai
Well-known
Richard G.:
I presume that the focus was on the whiskers and not the eyes?
I mention that because the whiskers are sharp, whereas the eyes are a bit out of focus.
Scott - your wife's grandfather Joe had exquisite taste. MR meter is CdS, and much more sensitive than the selenium cell of the MC meter. Most MC meters these days don't even work. I have several MR-4 meters which all work (after servicing 😀).
The Tele-Elmar f/4 and the Elmarit f/2.8 have very similar lens diagrams and were designed at about the same time. I had a TE for some time. It is a very fine, sharp lens. But, after the Elmarit arrived, it was just so much easier to compose with the goggles.
I presume that the focus was on the whiskers and not the eyes?
I mention that because the whiskers are sharp, whereas the eyes are a bit out of focus.
Scott - your wife's grandfather Joe had exquisite taste. MR meter is CdS, and much more sensitive than the selenium cell of the MC meter. Most MC meters these days don't even work. I have several MR-4 meters which all work (after servicing 😀).
The Tele-Elmar f/4 and the Elmarit f/2.8 have very similar lens diagrams and were designed at about the same time. I had a TE for some time. It is a very fine, sharp lens. But, after the Elmarit arrived, it was just so much easier to compose with the goggles.
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Member
I think you will find no better bang for the buck than the late black Canon 135mm f/3.5. Great lens, smallish.
The Leica 135mm with eyes is nice, but it is really big and not worth it IMO. On the M3 you really don't need the eyes.
The Leica 135mm with eyes is nice, but it is really big and not worth it IMO. On the M3 you really don't need the eyes.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
The Elmar f4 from 1960 w/Lanthanum glass is a nice one...and because its not a tele design..real good in close up as well...I paid $200- for mine.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Mr. Fizzlesticks: Wonder if this is the same (full description) Canon lens? See:
"Canon 135mm f/3.5 LEICA LTM M39 Screwmount"
"Canon 135mm f/3.5 LEICA LTM M39 Screwmount"
