peterm1
Veteran
In relation to your last paragraph. It can be either haze or just an artifact of photo lighting for the eBay shot I have found. You need to ask the seller I think. If you buy from Japan there is a higher chance of haze (long hot wet summers) but I have yet to find a Japanese seller who is not forthright about condition of the lenses they have for sale. Mostly they tend to overstate problems, I think because Japanese (and maybe now, Chinese) online buyers are very particular about the condition of stuff they are willing to buy. I tend to buy from reputable sellers in Japan for this reason even given the above haze (and fungus) risks from their climate. I have gotten some real bargains now and then when a seller marks his kit down based on condition with a commensurately low B.I.N. price only to find when I get it, it's better than I had even hoped. I do not mind some compromises on appearance if function is ok. With this kind of haze though it is a potential issue. I also bought the FL mount version of this lens and it too has the same issue. Though it is usable (with some care).
randy stewart
Established
I sorted out your question for myself using a VIT about 20 years ago. I actually own all of the options mentioned in various comments, but my kit was clear: 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4, and 100mm 3.5. The 100mm 2.0 is huge and heavy. It is too cumbersome to be useful in this kit context.; Likewise, the 135mm is a long focus, not telephoto, design, so it is long and relatively heavy.
newst
Well-known
I am surprised that nobody has suggested a Jupiter-11 in LTM as an option for the 135mm lens. It is a sharp, Sonnar design, a direct copy of the Zeiss Sonnar optics in a lightweight aluminum body. The Soviets made tons of them so they are still available at low prices.
Fedka.com sells them, CLA'd and warranted, for $99. Cheaper on Ebay, but you take your chances.
Personally I prefer the Canon 3.5/100 or Elmar 4.0/90 as, for me, 135mm is just a bit too long for shooting on a rangefinder. My results with one are hit and miss. But, if you want a decent, inexpensive, 135mm this is a good choice. I enjoy using it on my Sony mirrorless.
Fedka.com sells them, CLA'd and warranted, for $99. Cheaper on Ebay, but you take your chances.
Personally I prefer the Canon 3.5/100 or Elmar 4.0/90 as, for me, 135mm is just a bit too long for shooting on a rangefinder. My results with one are hit and miss. But, if you want a decent, inexpensive, 135mm this is a good choice. I enjoy using it on my Sony mirrorless.
aoresteen
Well-known
I have the black Canon 135 f/3.5 lens that I use with my M3. Superb lens. If your are set on a 135mm hunt one down. Otherwise what raid said.
raid: the 100mm f/3.5 arrived today. No haze!
raid: the 100mm f/3.5 arrived today. No haze!
raid
Dad Photographer
Good for you, Tony! It is a really good lens overall.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree about the Canon 135mm f3.5. It is incredible for its time - even today it is excellent. (Long focus throw though). A few years ago I took mine with me to Bali just to have something longer in case I needed it. One photo I took from a cliff top overlooking both Jimbaran Bay and the airport to the north impressed me particularly. Despite the heat haze and some air pollution I could read the airline logos on the sides of some planes. I used Google Earth to check the distance - it was over 6 kilometers. I thought this was exceptional resolving power for a lens of its age.
Congrats on the 100mm f3.5. I am sure you will enjoy it. Please post some pics when you have a chance.
aoresteen
Well-known
My 100mm f/3.5 is on its way to DAG for a CLA. When buying an unknown lens it's best to have it checked & serviced by an expert. 
davhill
Canon P
As you say: “on my Sony mirrorless”. The OP asked about tele lenses on a Canon P. No Soviet LTM lens longer than about 50mm works well on a Canon or Leica or any other non-Soviet LTM body. Its because the Soviets used the Contax-spec helicoid and rangefinder cam on their LTM lenses and cameras, which is fractionally different than the Leica spec. The resulting focus shift when used on a ‘western’ LTM is easily encompassed by depth of field in a wide lens (Jupiter-12), awkward but adaptable on a 50 (Jupiter-8 or -3), but useless on anything longer. You need a Soviet LTM camera for a Jupiter 11 (or through-lens focusing as on your Sony mirrorless).
AndersG
Well-known
I do get some useable pictures with the Jupiter-11 and my Canon 7, but I seldom use it wide open, instead f/8-11 and distant scenery. I'm not that careful with focusing, though.
Canon 7, Jupiter-11, Kodak Tri-X 400TX at 1/250 sec, f/8, November 2019:
Canon 7, Jupiter-11, Kodak Tri-X 400TX at 1/250 sec, f/8, November 2019:
davhill
Canon P
Indeed yes, and your photo shows it’s character well. Distance (@infinity) is where a J11 WILL work. I should’ve made that point. It’s closer focusing where it gets progressively further off.
AndersG
Well-known
That might explain something of this example, but it is also 1/30 sec which is very very slow for a 135mm. I think I tried to set the focus on my daughter Sigrid (but the next time I'd set it on Erik instead ).
My children at the old phonograph and radio. Canon 7, Jupiter-11, Kodak Tri-X 400TX at 1/30 sec, f/4, October 2019:
).My children at the old phonograph and radio. Canon 7, Jupiter-11, Kodak Tri-X 400TX at 1/30 sec, f/4, October 2019: