Best value lens?

[Austerby]

Having read threads on how excellent the 135mm Tele-Elmar I decided to try one for myself. To my surprise I picked up an mint first version (with the head that can be unscrewed) for a shade under £80 on the auction site everyone uses. It goes beautifully on my M3 and nicely on the M7 and I had a very enjoyable time with it during a lunch break today. The attached is my favourite, though it does show some flare I like the tonality and highlight detail. (HP5+ in Rodinal 1+50).

Why is this lens not more appreciated? The focal length is handy, it's not a big lens, it's spectacular value for money. I guess the reasons why I've not had one until now apply - I view the Leica M as a predominantly wide- to normal lens platform: I was wrong!

 

[noimmunity]

I have a later version (E46) TE 135, which has the same optical formula but perhaps a different coating. There are claims it is an APO design...
Anyway, I agree, it is a fantastic way to get a modern Leica lens at a very reasonable price. Very sharp, beautiful color, dreamy bokeh. But it is not a small lens, no matter how you slice it. It weighs the same as my Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 . The idea that a 135 isn't for a rangefinder is more of a myth. It just means accepting certain limits.

Marty Ivanovitch portrait at minimum focus distance, TE 135 (E46) shot on Eastman 250D motion picture stock using ZI with external Komura finder.

 

[Krosya]

I was thinking to get one of those for a while, but ended up with NIkkor 10.5cm/2.5 and never looked back. I agree - longer lenses can work just fine on RF cameras, not just wide and normal FLs and deliver great results and are very useful.

 

[waileong]

It's a superb portrait lens, but don't tell anyone, it's Leica's best kept secret.

 

[januaryman]

I vote Canon 100/3.5 - razor sharp, cheap.