qruyk12
Established
Looking for a 135 M lens for my MP. Whats a good choice aside from the obvious APO lens?
135mm lens advice
- Thread starter qruyk12
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 15
- Views 1K
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The old Tele-Elmar is quite a wonderful lens, with much of the character of the older Leica glass- think the 35 & 50 pre-ASPH Summilux. They're also cheap, so a good way to give 135 a try. The 135 on an M is not the same as a 135 on an SLR by an means.
Austerby
Well-known
I concur with the tele-elmar f4 lens which I have and am very pleased with. I have no experience of the others but would expect it difficult to improve upon this combination of capability and price point.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
The 135mm f/2.8 with "eyes" is a great lens. Larger, of course, but the eyes really make the lens usable, I think.
Tom
peterm1
Veteran
I agree the tele elmar is a great lens.
sanmich
Veteran
canon 135mm f/3.5
best bang for the bucks
best bang for the bucks
Spider67
Well-known
and another vote...
and another vote...
for the canon....On the other hand the Leitz 135 bought used has not the tsellar prices of other lenses....
and another vote...
for the canon....On the other hand the Leitz 135 bought used has not the tsellar prices of other lenses....
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Did you consider picking up something like an older manual Minolta, Pentax, whatever body and have something that's convenient to actually use with a 135? They all made pretty decent 135 glass as well. You could probably pick up the rig (and maybe a 50 too) for about the price of a Tele-Elmar lenshood.
venchka
Veteran
Agreed. I had mine out recently. Very good lens.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I have both the Tele-Elmar and the Nikkor 135/3.5 sonnar copy. Both are great. The Nikkor is the smaller, but the ergonomics of the Elmar may be a little easier to use. The Nikkor was even smaller than the Hektor 135/4.5 that I used to have, even though it is a 1/2 stop faster. (The Hektor is mediocre.)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm with Tom. Maybe it isn't as sharp as the alternatives, if you nail them down on a tripod and take your time focusing, but the 135/2.8 is easier to focus, silly-cheap and (for my money) delivers delightful quality.
Yes, it's big, bulky and heavy -- but it's still a damn' sight smaller and handier than an additional reflex body plus lens. I'm not making that up: as well as the 135/2.8 I also have a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1, 135/3.5 Takumar and 135/1.8 Porst/Soligor (also M42). I bought the Vivitar decades ago when I still used mostly Nikons; the Porst/Soligor was a gift; and the Takumar was hard to resist at a tenner, ten or twenty years ago.
Tashi delek,
R.
Yes, it's big, bulky and heavy -- but it's still a damn' sight smaller and handier than an additional reflex body plus lens. I'm not making that up: as well as the 135/2.8 I also have a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1, 135/3.5 Takumar and 135/1.8 Porst/Soligor (also M42). I bought the Vivitar decades ago when I still used mostly Nikons; the Porst/Soligor was a gift; and the Takumar was hard to resist at a tenner, ten or twenty years ago.
Tashi delek,
R.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've used the 135 APO, TE and both versions of the Elmarit. All are close in performance. If you don't mind the bulk, the 2nd version (E55) Elmarit will give you more keepers because focusing and framing are a breeze compared to the non-goggled versions. If you want a handy, compact lens you can't beat the TE as it's near peak performance wide open at f/4. The APO version is faster and marginally sharper but hardly worth the $$$ unless you are a real 135 diehard and have the money to blow. I've used the 135/3.5 in the Nikon F mount (exact same optic till the late 70's) and it is quite competant but a tad softer than the TE.
danmitch
Member
I think the 135 f4 Tele-Elmar is a great lens and well suited to my M3 - I would be a little concerned about accuracy of focus without a finder magnifier on a .72 finder. You should get one in excellent condition for well under £200 - less for a "user".
Example picture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/danmitch/3694728615/
I find it has nice contract and colour rendition and is pretty sharp too.
Example picture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/danmitch/3694728615/
I find it has nice contract and colour rendition and is pretty sharp too.
myM8yogi
Established
Nice shot Dan.
I also have a 135/4 tele elmar. Very nice lens indeed. It's the longest lens i'll use on the M8, so I don't mind the bulk and weight too much given the reach (180mm eFOV). If you can shoot from the shade, removing the lens hood makes a very large difference to the discreteness of the lens.
My other lenses are 15, 35, 75, and now the 135. I usually only take either the 75 or the 135, depending on what I'm shooting. Yesterday I was shooting a mixture of beach volleyball tight action shots and telephoto compression/shallowDOF shots of dune grass - both with the 135. I couldn't be happier with the results. Strongly recommended for the price.
I also have a 135/4 tele elmar. Very nice lens indeed. It's the longest lens i'll use on the M8, so I don't mind the bulk and weight too much given the reach (180mm eFOV). If you can shoot from the shade, removing the lens hood makes a very large difference to the discreteness of the lens.
My other lenses are 15, 35, 75, and now the 135. I usually only take either the 75 or the 135, depending on what I'm shooting. Yesterday I was shooting a mixture of beach volleyball tight action shots and telephoto compression/shallowDOF shots of dune grass - both with the 135. I couldn't be happier with the results. Strongly recommended for the price.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
I had forgotten that I had posted a picture taken with the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit. (The one with the eyes.) There is a masonry wall in the picture, behind the main subjects, and in a 13x19 print there is a lot of sharp detail on that wall! It and others in that series impressed my digital friends no end for the fine detail. (Shot on E100G film, which helped.)
It was easy to stand across the street from these jewelry sellers in Santa Fe and (thanks to the eyes) compose accurately.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=33733
F
former member
Guest
The late model Black Canon 135/3.5 is quite sharp, shorter than many 135's, and lighter. It usually goes for under $100.
The 135 framelines of the M3 are good. For 0.72x finders, a 135 with eyes is a better solution if you "just have to" use it on an RF. The SLR solution is probably wiser. I have a lot of 135's for my RF's. "Just have to." The Tele-Colinar 135/3.8 is another very sharp Sonnar copy that goes under the RADAR screen.
The 135 framelines of the M3 are good. For 0.72x finders, a 135 with eyes is a better solution if you "just have to" use it on an RF. The SLR solution is probably wiser. I have a lot of 135's for my RF's. "Just have to." The Tele-Colinar 135/3.8 is another very sharp Sonnar copy that goes under the RADAR screen.
Last edited by a moderator:
