Anyone use this lens

[Steve Bellayr]

Has anyone used the Leica Tele-elmar 135mm f4? I am interested in this lens and wonder if it might be too unwieldy for the M series or if the rangefinder focusing would be too difficult. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks.

 

[tbm]

The first time I used mine was when I was photographing a high school marching band marching down a street. I was so pleased to discover that I could focus it rather easily, despite their bodies moving, on my M6! And the quality of the Provia 100 slides I projected later at my camera club was out of this world! It is a wonderful lens!

 

[ferider]

Steve, it's a great lens, and works particularly well on an M3. Here is from two weeks ago:

(Elephant Seals in San Simeon; lens is late E39 version).

For .72 viewfinders I recommend the Elmarit, makes framing easier with the eyes.

Roland.

 

[waileong]

The 135/4 is a great lens. Pity people pass on it as they're afraid they can't focus it well. Not true at all! It's extremely sharp and perfect for portraits. Also good as a short telephoto for landscapes.

 

[icebear]

I found that framing is actually more difficult than the focusing itself. Therefore a higher mag. finder or M3 goes along just fine with the 4/135. The optical quality of this old lens is pretty close up there to the latest Apo version and you can get the old one for much less money. Mine doesn't get much use compared to my other lenses though. So I would fork out the dough for a new one.

 

[awilder]

The best Leica lens for the money available....period! A true sleeper. Typically selling used for around $300 (E39 version) due to low demand, this lens is apo corrected and performs virtually the same as the much more expensive 135/3.4 APO Telyt. The optically identical E46 version of the 135/4 is more scarce and fetches about $150 more. At full aperture it's near peak performance so stopping down is just for extending dof. A 1.25X finder magnifier or 0.85x finder works best and it handles beatifully on an M body. Only drawback is the slightly high weight for a 135/4, but that's Leica.

 

[raydm6]

I like it a lot!

I like it a lot!

Steve, it's a great lens. Also being an E39 I can share filters with my 35 and 90. On a .72 M6 I have no problems with handling/focusing. It really is kinda' small when the lens hood is off.


This is a 300dpi scan so you are not seeing what it really can do 😎

 

[raydm6]

You might see a funny number on the one you buy...

You might see a funny number on the one you buy...

I recently found out what the "60" denotes on my 135's lens barrel (one explanation here ...and here):

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Thanks. Seems like a great lens.

 

[Tom A]

As has been said - it is one of the best 135's you can find. Resolution is already high at f4 and all you really gain by stopping down is depth of field. The lenshead also makes a great "macro" lens on a Visoflex. You need the extension tube for it but those are not that difficult to find.
The new Apo is probably marginally higher contrast, but I doubt you will see much difference between them. Cheap too - unless we keep hyping it up here!
The Elmarit 135f2.8 is OK, but can suffer dislocated focussing prisms in the goggles. This one becomes a really long rangefinder lens on the M8 (about 175mm f2.8!!). Good quality lens, but a bit clumsy to use. The Tele Elmar 135f4 is better!

 

[raid]

GAS is building up. You have caused it!
Seriously, is this lens somehow "better" than the Elmarit?

 

[Tom A]

Optically the Tele Elmar 135f4 is much better than the Elmarit 135f2.8. The 135f2.8 is OK but the 135f4 is shines.

 

[awilder]

I disagree a little with Tom having owned both versions of the 135/2.8. The 135 TE is a little better than the first version of the 135/2.8 but performance is a virtual tie with the optically improved 2nd version (E55) of the 135/2.8 based on super critcal comparisons against the TE at the same apertures. In some respects the 135/2.8 yields more keepers in poor lighting thanks to the improved focusing accuracy with the aid of the 1.5x goggles. The only drawback is the additional bulk of the attacked goggles when trying to stow the lens in a camera bag. He's correct about prism dislocation and is more common on the first version. However on either lens it's an easy DIY fix provided you have a decent set of small screwdrivers. In fact, the DIY prism adjustment is one of it's best features as you can tweak it's accuracy to the 'nth degree for perfect alignment without disturbing the camera's cam or vertical adjustment if it's perfectly adjusted for your other lenses.

 

[payasam]

My experience makes me say that Roland and Icebear are right. I shall add, though, that for those with vision problems the 135mm length on a RF camera is a bit dicey.