135mm for my M3

[venchka]

Here you go...

135mm Elmar

 

[Ben Z]

All the years I shot with Pentax screwmount I used 3 lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 135mm. Then when I got into Leica M I went with 35-50-90 because I read how "hard" it is to focus a 135 and how "tiny and bad" the framelines were. But I was never really happy with the 90 being my longest lens so last year I bought me a KEH bargain 135 T-E for $250 or so (kill me I can't see where it isn't at least EX+ if not Mint-). Haven't had one blip of trouble getting pinpoint focus at 1.5m wide open and I plain decided not to whine about the framelines and just use them and you know what? I got used to it and it's just fine with me. I no longer bother with the 1.25 magnifier most of the time. Recently I got the short mount for it and have been using it with M-R and R-EOS adaptors on my 20D as well. If I get an M8 I look forward to using it as a 180mm, either with the Visoflex or straight on the camera with a zoom-finder I have that has a detent for 180mm, and the 1.25 magnifier for focusing. I'll believe it's not usable on the M8 when I see it for myself, till then I think it's hogwash. I handled a googled 135/2.8 at a camera store once. That was enough for me.

 

[SteveM(PA)]

Another vote for the black Canon 135 f/3.5. It is compact, light, and very nice sharp pictures, with excellent blur. I own the Steinhel f/4.5 in LTM, the Contax RF CZJ 135 f/4, and the Canon 135 f/3.5 in LTM; I've handled the Leica 135 f/2.8 Elmarit, the Nikon 135 f/3.5 in Nikon RF mount, the Leica 135 Elmar f/4...

If Contax had made the 135 f/4 Sonnar in LTM, I'd choose it over Canon's, for it is slightly more compact, and of course, takes beautiful Sonnar shots.

For Leica, all things considered, no doubt about it, I say get the black Canon 135 f/3.5.

Wait a minute, the black one in that auction...looks much smaller than my chrome 135 3.5...am I nutz for carrying this thing around (4.5 inches long at closest focus)?

 

[back alley]

smaller...and lighter too.

 

[Oh Two]

For the money the 135 Elmar is a good choice. Even a later model goes for around $200, and it is quite a bit nicer in bokeh and sharpness than the 90mm Elmar to my eye.

A newer lens has to be a MUCH nicer before I'll spend money on it. I have finally replaced my 90 Elmar with a 90 Tele Elmarit (it was like pulling teeth) but I haven't seen anything yet that will make me give up my old 135 Elmar.

I was impressed with the Canon, however. I think the difference between the two is that there is more of the old National Geographic look to the older Leitz lenses and the Canon looks like a '60s Newsweek shot. However, that is more obvious in color. I believe the new color negative films really compliment the older Leitz lenses, kind of like what throwing paint is to an abstract expressionist painter. It's just easier to make 'arty' pictures with them.