135mm on M9?

[daniel buck]

So I've been getting into range finders lately (a few older film range finders, a FED 3 and a Konika III) after alot of time with SLRs and more recently 4x5 and 8x10 large format. I've finally decided to sell my 8x10 setup and some of my SLR lenses to pick up an M9, using a Ultron 28/2.0 and Nokton 50/1.1, which are my two favorite focal lengths in the SLR world for general shooting.

My question though, sside from my general shooting, when I shoot vehicles (I like to do alot of car photography as well) I usually grab my 135/2.0 on a full chip or film SLR. How difficult is it to use a long lens like this on a range finder? I imagine I'll still probably grab my SLR setup for when I'm shooting cars, but I'm just curious to know if a 135 (or there abouts) with a decently fast aperture is easy to frame and focus on a range finder.

Thoughts on this are welcomed and appreciated 🙂

Daniel

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Daniel.

I LOVE the 135/2.8 on my M9. Of course it brings up the 90mm framelines, which are magnified along with the RF base. Next-to-last pic in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html is 135/2.8. And yes, it's easy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ruslan]

It is really very easy to file down on bayonet to bring 135 frame.

 

[tlitody]

It is really very easy to file down on bayonet to bring 135 frame.

please explain further.

 

[Ben Z]

It is really very easy to file down on bayonet to bring 135 frame.

True, it's easy, but why in creation would you want to do it? The 135 Elmarit is supposed to bring up the 90mm framelines...the google eyes magnify it to give 135mm framing--much larger than the actual 135mm frame used with the other 135mm lenses. They also magnify the rangefinder image, which increases the effective baselength to where focusing accuracy befits the lens and it's wide aperture. Other 135mm lenses which use the standard 135mm frame are limited to f/3.4-f/4 for that reason.

That said, I was never a fan of the Elmarit. For one thing it's quite a heavy and ungainly beast as rangefinder lenses go. Makes the 75 Summilux look svelte by comparison. For me the main draw of Leica is the size. If I had to carry the Elmarit I'd might as well just use a DSLR. For another thing, the google eyes have to be properly adjusted, and many of the lenses out there in the used market need that to be done.

I have a (older version w/e39 filter) 135/4 Tele Elmar, which is an astoundingly good lens optically. Mine front-focuses about 1.5-2cm on my M9, but having paid around $250 for it, don't consider spending another $90 to have it re-collimated. For the rare occasion I shoot the lens close enough that DOF won't cover that 2cm, I'm just going to remember to lean in 2cm after focusing. And frankly I couldn't say whether the lens really front focuses, or I just can't see the split-image on a subject well enough at 1.5m (it's close-focus limit). I tried my 1.25x magnifier, but for what it adds in magnification it more than subtracts in loss of brightness and contrast.

The cool thing about the T-E is that the head unscrews and I've got the short-focus mount to mount it on my Visoflex-III. Viewing and focusing is a lot nicer than even the 135/2.8 (although in fairness, the Visoflex is a little clumsy).

 

[Roger Hicks]

True, it's easy, but why in creation would you want to do it? The 135 Elmarit is supposed to bring up the 90mm framelines...the google eyes magnify it to give 135mm framing--much larger than the actual 135mm frame used with the other 135mm lenses. They also magnify the rangefinder image, which increases the effective baselength to where focusing accuracy befits the lens and it's wide aperture. Other 135mm lenses which use the standard 135mm frame are limited to f/3.4-f/4 for that reason.

That said, I was never a fan of the Elmarit. For one thing it's quite a heavy and ungainly beast as rangefinder lenses go. Makes the 75 Summilux look svelte by comparison. For me the main draw of Leica is the size. If I had to carry the Elmarit I'd might as well just use a DSLR. For another thing, the google eyes have to be properly adjusted, and many of the lenses out there in the used market need that to be done.

I have a (older version w/e39 filter) 135/4 Tele Elmar, which is an astoundingly good lens optically. Mine front-focuses about 1.5-2cm on my M9, but having paid around $250 for it, don't consider spending another $90 to have it re-collimated. For the rare occasion I shoot the lens close enough that DOF won't cover that 2cm, I'm just going to remember to lean in 2cm after focusing. And frankly I couldn't say whether the lens really front focuses, or I just can't see the split-image on a subject well enough at 1.5m (it's close-focus limit). I tried my 1.25x magnifier, but for what it adds in magnification it more than subtracts in loss of brightness and contrast.

The cool thing about the T-E is that the head unscrews and I've got the short-focus mount to mount it on my Visoflex-III. Viewing and focusing is a lot nicer than even the 135/2.8 (although in fairness, the Visoflex is a little clumsy).

Dear Ben,

True, but less heavy and ungainly than any other 135 plus a second camera body from a different system -- which is why I use M-series until I need 200mm. Even then, 135 on an M8 is equivalent to 180mm....

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

Dear Ben,

135 on an M8 is equivalent to 180mm....

Cheers,

R.

I agree, the Elmarit compares favorably size-wise to a 180/2.8, and the 1-stop gain as well as the increase in effective baselength are that much more of a consideration at the 1.3x magnification of an M8. But the OP specifically said M9 and my comments pertained to that. For the rather modest focal length on full-frame the advantages of the Elmarit over the Tele-Elmar and APO-Telyt are, IMHO, outweighed (no pun intended) by the better optical performance (not that the Elmarit, particularly v.2, aren't darn good) and easier portability of either of the latter two.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> I usually grab my 135/2.0 on a full chip or film SLR. How difficult is it to use a long lens
> like this on a range finder?

Of course, there is no long like a 135/2.0 for a rangefinder camera. You will be giving up a full F-Stop even for the fastest 135 available on an RF. A 135/2.0 lens is beyond available rangefinder's ability. Why not keep an SLR to use the 135/2.0 on?

 

[daniel buck]

> I usually grab my 135/2.0 on a full chip or film SLR. How difficult is it to use a long lens
> like this on a range finder?

Of course, there is no long like a 135/2.0 for a rangefinder camera. You will be giving up a full F-Stop even for the fastest 135 available on an RF. A 135/2.0 lens is beyond available rangefinder's ability. Why not keep an SLR to use the 135/2.0 on?

Indeed, I realize there's not the exact same lenses that I'm used to on my SLR. If I can find a 135 that is fast enough (2.8 should do nicely) to give me good seperation of the car from the background, bluring the background enough, then maybe i would not need to take two camera systems when I go to shoot a car. The wide angle and normal angle stuff I'm quite certain the rangefinder will handle just fine, it's the longer lens shots that I'm not so sure. I guess I'll just have to rent/borrow a 135/2.8 for the M9 and give it a try, see how I like it. if it doesn't work out, then I'll have my SLR for the longer lens shots.

These are the type of shots I shoot with longer lenses, the classic "3/4" angle of vehicles, and I like to shoot them wide open to blur the background. If it's not practical to shoot these longer shots on the M9, then that's not a deal breaker at all, I wasn't intending the M9 to take over as my vehicle camera, but the more i think about it, the more I realize that I could probably do most of the shots with the range finder just as easilly, the wide and normal shots for sure. (wide shots I'm usually at f8 or f11, on a tripod or hand-held if it's bright enough).

I don't always shoot the long lens shots wide open, for instance in the last shot, it was stopped down several stops (f8 I'm guessing, can't remember).

What are some good options for 135mm (or focal length close to this) for an M9, is the 135/2.8 (Leica I assume?) the main one to look at?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Not many 135/2.8's in Leica RF mount. Go for the 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit with "eyes". The goggles magnify the view, and the 90mm framelines get turned into 135 lines. I use a Nikkor 105/2.5 on my M8 using the 90 framelines and a 1.25x magnifier. It works well.

 

[daniel buck]

Thank you Brian, for that information. I've seen some photos of the lens with the magnification goggles on them. Can I assume that with this lens there may need to be some sort of calibration checks to make sure that it is focusing the same as what the range finder shows? or should it be fairly plug and play?

 

[Roger Hicks]

They're so cheap there's no need to rent -- and yes, they should be 'plug and play' on an M9. Point of focus on the attached railing shot -- closest focus, full aperture -- is (surprise) where it looks sharpest. This is on my M8. It's just as good on my M9.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daniel buck]

wonderful, thank you 🙂 I'm glad to hear that it's plug in play, I may just pick one up. I'm still not familier with the leica way of things, I've heard that some lenses need to have some focus calibration (I've done this on my speedgraphic's range finder before) thank you for clearing that up about this particular lens 🙂

 

[jamato8]

I find the 135 on my m9 or in the past the M2, to outweigh the reason I use the viewfinder camera. For me it gets to be too much bulk and weight. For a 135 I love the 135L Canon. It totally reminds me of Leica optics and with the f2, the isolation and speed of focus, for me, make it a dream to use. Getting up to 200 I put on a 1.4 TC for the 135 and still get excellent results or the 200L F2 but that thing gets heavy but also reminds me of Leica glass.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In 1980 (or thereabouts) I bought a 135/2.8 and sold it maybe 15 years later for the reasons the others have given (too big and awkwardly shaped, didn't use it much).

When I got the M8 I borrowed another one for an article I was doing about using old lenses on digital Leicas -- and fell in love with it. Fortunately the owner was willing to sell. It was one of the last two lenses in stock at Solms, so it's very late. I have not regretted it yet. Sure, it's big and heavy. But it's (slightly) smaller and lighter than even my smallest, lightest SLR-fit 135 plus the SLR (Takumar on Pentax) and a LOT smaller and lighter than my 135/2,3 Series One on a Nikon F. In fact it's comparable in weight with the 135/2,3 without a body, though of course the Vivitar is 1/2 stop faster and focuses even closer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daniel buck]

Thanks again for all the input 🙂

I can see (from looking at photos of the lens) that it would probably be a little awkward to use for general shooting (for me it would be much to long of a lens for general shooting anyway). If I pick it up I'll probably pop it into my bag when I go to shoot a car. It would be nice to just toss in one extra lens when I go to casually shoot a car, rather than bringing a whole other camera setup.

Anyway, I'll see how it goes, if I don't like using the 135 on the range finder, then I'll just have to bring my SLR and 135 when I go to shoot cars. That doesn't bother me, if it's the better tool for the job, then I'll stick to that for my long lens shots 🙂

 

[jaapv]

What on earth is against using the superb - arguably best 135 on the market - Apo telyt 135 3.4 on the M9, or the nearly as good Tele Elmar 13 4.0? Or even the ancient Hektor 135 4.0 whichoutperforms many a modern lens? I never found focussing these lenses particularly difficult. The 2.8 is a decent lens as well, but too bulky and unwieldy imo, and I dislike the tunnel vision of the goggles. Using these lenses on the M8 is quite doable as well, and one can overratate them to bring up the 90 mm framelines, that give a usable indication of the framing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What on earth is against using the superb - arguably best 135 on the market - Apo telyt 135 3.4 on the M9, or the nearly as good Tele Elmar 13 4.0?

Considerably more reliable framelines in camera. Easier focus thanks to 1,5x magnification. Better performance than older lenses, even if not as good as the Apo Telyt. Faster. And silly-cheap. Looks like a good set of arguments to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ederek]

Considerably more reliable framelines in camera. Easier focus thanks to 1,5x magnification. Better performance than older lenses, even if not as good as the Apo Telyt. Faster. And silly-cheap. Looks like a good set of arguments to me.

Cheers,

R.

What range is "silly-cheap" for a 135/2.8 in perfect condition?

With this and the other 135 thread, I did put it on the M9 and go out to take a few shots.

One thing I like about the weight of the lens is that it naturally hangs straight down, whereas the 75 lux is heavy, but not quite heavy enough on the nose to keep the lens pointing straight down when carrying camera with shoulder strap. I like the top of the camera facing outward as that works better when bringing the camera up for taking a shot.

 

[jaapv]

Considerably more reliable framelines in camera. Easier focus thanks to 1,5x magnification. Better performance than older lenses, even if not as good as the Apo Telyt. Faster. And silly-cheap. Looks like a good set of arguments to me.

Cheers,

R.

I cannot say that I find the 2.8 (90 mm) framelines considerably more reliable than the 135 framelines on the M9. It may have to do with the adjustment of the goggles.But then I am not much of a frameline-accuracy person. Too much wedded to the rangefinder concept I guess🙁 And I strongly dislike the blocking off of the outer parts of the viewfinder by the 2.8, It gives, as I said before, a tunnel vision. Especially with longer lenses I like to see the surrounding area in order to aim the camera more easily. Silly cheap indeed. But I paid 100 Euro for an as-new Hektor. Which is about the same quality as the 2.8, albeit slower.