135mm on M9?

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Personal taste, I guess. With the 1.5x magnification of the 0.68x finder, I find it close enough to 1:1 that I keep both eyes open. I take your point about frameline accuracy, but quite honestly I'd forgotten that the M9 had a 135mm finder, as I've no occasion to use it; I was thinking of the M8, where a 135 frame (90 magnified 1.5x) is more accurate than an unmagnified 90 finder and a lot more accurate than no finder at all.

In response to ederek, I think I paid 300€ for mine, mint with case, box, paperwork, etc., from the first owner who bought it new in the 90s. And I sold my last one for about £200, I think.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ederek]

^^ Thanks, at that price it seems worth it to hang on to the lens for the occasions it is used.

Good point about geting to 1:1 and keeping both eyes open (am a left-eye shooter) so will try that next time I use the lens.

 

[daniel buck]

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.

For me, the sole purpose of having a faster 135 would be for shooting these vehicle shots, which is usually on a tripod (because I like to shoot when the sun is going down, if I can), so the unwieldyness of the larger lens wouldn't really be a problem. The only problem I think would be the fact that I'd have to keep the lens in my bag for those times when I know I'll be shooting a vehicle.

Or perhaps if the lens does not perform very well at f2.8, that could be the other problem. I'm used to my Canon 135/2.0 that is nice and sharp wide open, if the leica 135/2.8 isn't going to be sharp wide open, or has lots of purple blooming on highlights wide open, then I'll probably just skip it and bring my SLR for those shots, which is tried and true for these long lens 3/4 angles 🙂

I do shoot these angles stopped down sometimes, but I usually shoot two version, a wide open version, and a version stopped down to f8 or f11. I usually end up choosing to use the wide open version though.

 

[menos]

I love the 135 APO for it's light weight and compact build as a very, very sharp and usable tele from wide open on.

It comes with a price though and can not really be found for less than 1.500,- EUR (if you are so lucky, to find one for that price).
I bought mine new, as it was hard to get, when I wanted one.

I tried the hulking 135 2.8, hated it, and gave it back after a few hours of torture.
It indeed is a bargain, if it fits the RF settings and the photographers taste in tunnel vision, weight and bulk - mine it was not.

The many older 135 Leitz lenses are said, to be good and cheap, I never tried them.

Any modern fast Leica M tele will come expensive by comparison to excellent SLR lenses in that range.
If lugging a tripod for these shots anyway, I might reconsider, to go for a Leica M tele in that range and get a compact DSLR + wonderful manual focus fast medium tele like a 105, 135 or even 180 with any aperture around f1.8 − 2.8.

These can be had for a song compared to the slower and more expensive Leica M offerings bar the 135 2.8 goggle monster.

If it is actually light weight, you aim, try a 135 f4 or even the 135 APO, if money is no issue.
I bought mine for shooting motor sports with the M8.2 and M7 with a minimum of gear, to leave the Nikon stuff at home. I am very happy with that.

 

[daniel buck]

I love the 135 APO for it's light weight and compact build as a very, very sharp and usable tele from wide open on.

It comes with a price though and can not really be found for less than 1.500,- EUR (if you are so lucky, to find one for that price).
I bought mine new, as it was hard to get, when I wanted one.

I tried the hulking 135 2.8, hated it, and gave it back after a few hours of torture.
It indeed is a bargain, if it fits the RF settings and the photographers taste in tunnel vision, weight and bulk - mine it was not.

The many older 135 Leitz lenses are said, to be good and cheap, I never tried them.

Any modern fast Leica M tele will come expensive by comparison to excellent SLR lenses in that range.
If lugging a tripod for these shots anyway, I might reconsider, to go for a Leica M tele in that range and get a compact DSLR + wonderful manual focus fast medium tele like a 105, 135 or even 180 with any aperture around f1.8 − 2.8.

These can be had for a song compared to the slower and more expensive Leica M offerings bar the 135 2.8 goggle monster.

If it is actually light weight, you aim, try a 135 f4 or even the 135 APO, if money is no issue.
I bought mine for shooting motor sports with the M8.2 and M7 with a minimum of gear, to leave the Nikon stuff at home. I am very happy with that.

Thank you for your thoughts on this!

Indeed, for most of my shooting I would be leaving the 135 (or my DSLR and 135) at home, so the bulk is not really a problem. When I go to shoot a car, I know I'm going to have to be carrying some heavier glass with my DSLR. I think I'll give the 135/2.8 a try on the M, and see how it goes. Maybe I could leave the DSLR home for some of the car shoots, who knows 🙂

Can you comment on it's wide-open performance (the 2.8) focused around 10-20 meters? Good enough for 11x14 prints?

 

[menos]

Thank you for your thoughts on this!
…
Can you comment on it's wide-open performance (the 2.8) focused around 10-20 meters? Good enough for 11x14 prints?

So far, I did not come with the 135 2.8, I had.
It gave me enough frustration, to give up on day one no other lens so far made me do that.
Look for a nice and cheap sample, so you can resell it comfortably or get a descent shop, who has one with solid return policy.

There is a reason, it's price is down (being, not many people liking it, compared to other offerings).

 

[jaapv]

Personally I really like the 4.0 Tele-Elmars, being a perfect match to the M9 imo. I am selling mine now on LUF as it ge me a taste for the Apo, which I just bought.

 

[Ben Z]

I had the APO and it was a wonderful lens. Focusing at f/3.4 really didn't seem to be any more problematic than f/4. I ended up back with the e39 version of the Tele Elmar mainly because the head comes off and can be used with the short focus mount on either the Visoflex or, via adapters, Leica R bodies and Canon EOS bodies.

 

[jaapv]

If I don't sell it I'll keep it for that. 🙂