wwulfsohn
Member
Roes the Leica 135mm f2.8 with eyes work with the m8? Do the eyes line up and focus properly? Should it be coded oristhat a waste of money?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
1.Yes it does and it brings up the correct framelines.
2. Coding makes sense for this lens . As it covers the blue dot the camera can get weird effects with flash use when the lens is not recognized.
3.The later versions of the 135/4.0 or the135/3.4 apo must be recommended over this lens (although it is certainly not bad). These two lenses can be made to bring up the 90 mm framelines by rotating them slightly past the detent. These framelines are good enough for framing, if used tightly.
2. Coding makes sense for this lens . As it covers the blue dot the camera can get weird effects with flash use when the lens is not recognized.
3.The later versions of the 135/4.0 or the135/3.4 apo must be recommended over this lens (although it is certainly not bad). These two lenses can be made to bring up the 90 mm framelines by rotating them slightly past the detent. These framelines are good enough for framing, if used tightly.
Last edited:
msendin
Member
For better focusing the eye piece magnifier is recomended.
I have the lense and its great virtue is the correct framing. For size and picture quality I would also go for the Tele Elmar....just that with it framing is a guess.
I have the lense and its great virtue is the correct framing. For size and picture quality I would also go for the Tele Elmar....just that with it framing is a guess.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually the framing (in)accuracy of the Tele-Elmar is about as far out as the Elmarit 135. If one uses the push-the-button-and-rotate trick to bring up the 90 mm framelines on the T-E the framelines are too wide by the same amount as the Elmarit ones are too narrow at infinity. And focussing accuracy - the advantage of the goggle magnification on the Elmarit is compensated by the aperture of 2.8 as opposed by 4.0 on the T-E. Rests the higher quality and lighter weight/smaller size of the TE which makes it the far more desirable lens if one does not need the speed. The Apo-Telyt of course is spectacularly highly specified, but I personally prefer the smoother bokeh of the TE.msendin said:
Two images by the Tele=Elmarit:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
When I got the M8, I borrowed a 135/2.8. I had had one in the past, but sold it because I used it so seldom.
I liked it so much on the M8 I bought another one.
I have not tried other 135s on the M8 but the convenience of the 135/2.8, plus the VF magnification, is such that I don't really feel the need. The 135/2.8 can take better photographs than I can, so I'm not going to fret about further increments in picture quality.
Cheers,
R.
I liked it so much on the M8 I bought another one.
I have not tried other 135s on the M8 but the convenience of the 135/2.8, plus the VF magnification, is such that I don't really feel the need. The 135/2.8 can take better photographs than I can, so I'm not going to fret about further increments in picture quality.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Patman
Established
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
Has anyone tried to remount the 135/3.4 APO on a 135 Ellmarit mount? The thought of having this done has crossed my mind.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ed Schwartzreic said:
Leica will convert the mount to a properly coded one that brings up the 90 mm frame lines on request; several users have had this done. There is no need to do this, however.
msendin
Member
Thanks Jaapv for your comments on framing with the tele elmar. I dont use much the Elmarit because the volume it occupies in a bag. Always been tempted for the tele elmar I am just afraid of been able to frame more or less correctly.