Compatibility of 135mm APO-Telyt with M8

[AGeoJO]

I understood that this lens cannot be coded but is it actually compatible with the M8, meaning it can be used on the M8 without causing any issues? Has anybody tried it? Thanks!

 

[jaapv]

Yes- I tried it at the Photokina - Leica themselves said no issues. It focussed fine, but the 1.25 Okular is mandatory. No framelines - so framing is experience, guesstimate and chimping. I would say the FOV in the viewfinder is about three RF patches wide and three RF patches high.

 

[ZeissFan]

And keep in mind that framing inaccuracy will become even more inaccurate as the subject gets closer, because the 135 now gives a field of view roughly equal to a 180.

I'm curious to see some samples with the 135 and see how much of a problem it is.

 

[awilder]

There is no reason it won't work except you'll have to guesstimate viewfinder framing and RF accuracy will be less requiring a 1.25 X eyepiece magnifier for critical focus. 6 bit coding shouldn't be a big issue since light falloff is insignificant on a 135/3.4 telephoto. The 135/2.8 has a 1.5 X magnifying goggle to take care of framing and increased magnification simultaneously.

 

[AGeoJO]

Hi Jaap, Mike and awilder,
Thank you very much. I know I could count on your expertise there😀 . Yes, I will be using a magnifier for focusing and have to estimate the coverage.

Jaap, what do you think of the IQ of the older Elmar or Elmarit compared to the Telyt version of the same focal length? I am trying to justify the purchase.... I realize it will be up to me to decide at the end but I would like to get your input and/or other people's input in this regard.

Again, thanks,
Joshua

 

[jaapv]

Let's put it this way, I sold mine to get a good 2.8 (plus some cash 😀) because I think it is a pretty darn good lens, albeit not as good as the 3.4, but the goggles -to me- offset that tradeoff. (and the sensor cuts off the "worst" parts.) The apo has as one of its strenghts that it is eyeblindingly sharp from corner to corner. I find it hard to see much quality difference at f4.0, but maybe my technique is not up to it - I mostly shoot handheld.

 

[awilder]

I had a late version of the135/2.8 Elmarit M and found it to be extremely sharp, as good or a hair better than the TE 135/4 except at the corners and with a trace more CA. However I sold it for a 135/4 TE I bought for a good price. The bulk of the goggles made it difficult to store in anything but it's dedicated case. The slimness of the 135/4 makes keeping it in my regular bag easy to do.

 

[John Camp]

As long as you're not relying on the 135 for the quick, one-time shot, I think it should work fine. You shoot once, look at the instant-on LCD, see exactly what you're getting, and shoot again if necessary, or change lenses.

JC

 

[edlaurpic]

I used the late model 135 f/3.4 on my M8 last weekend with a 49mm B+W 486 UV/IR cut filter, indoors under tungsten light, mixed tungsten and daylight through a window, and also a few shots with a tiny flash, and the results in all cases were spectacular. These were all handheld head shot portraits from across a room of my wife (she declined to let me post some images...sorry). All of the shots were wide open except with the flash. I also tried he 90 f/2 ASPH APO, which performed beautifully as well, but the added distance I was able to shoot at with the 135 caused me to use it more than the 90. I mostly shot at 1250 but some at 640 in both cases with exp comp at about -1.5 as the M8's 1250 is really 1600. I used the 1.25x ocular in about half of the shots and I can't really say that the results were that much better, but I was taking my time to focus, was seated and stable and my wife stayed fairly still, so the focus wasn't going in and out as it can do with a long lens in that situation. Framing was a breeze. I just estimated that the shot would be about twice the width and height of the focus patch, figuring that this would give me some leeway. I checked the LCD to make sure I was getting what I wanted and then reframed if necessary, and then shot away. The bottom line is that this is a terrific lens on the M8 if you can take your time, but that should always be the case anyway, IMO, when shooting wide open with a lens that has an effective 180mm frame. I don't know if the 135 f/2.8 with eyes would have been better, but I frankly doubt it. I wanted to see if the 135 f/3.4 would work for me before looking for a clean 135 f/2.8, but that is not something I intend to do now. Of course, the lens is a little long, but it is not that thick and, for me, was as easy to use as the 90 f/2 but produced much tighter portraits. By the way, be careful with this lens photographing someone who is in denial about his/her age as it is super sharp corner to corner and shows everything. Fortunately, my lovely wife, at 64, is quite comfortable with her age and occasionally indulges my need to make head shots to test my lenses. She is just a little shy about me posting shots of her, so I mostly don't.

 

[icebear]

Same experience here. Framing is a bit difficult but doable. I have a TE135/4 and for the few times I use this focal lenght I saved a few bucks. I got it used for $600.The APO Telyt would have been $1100 more. It is the absolute top notch in lab bench testing (see Puts) but in real world there's hardly any difference - with the cropping of the M8 forget about it.

 

[AGeoJO]

Hello Guys,
Thank you very much for your input. The Telyt seems to be harder to come by in addition to be significantly more expensive while the Elmarit and/or Elmar versions of this lens are readily available almost everywhere. It is not likely that I will use this focal length that frequently and the bulk (gogle) of the Elmarit could make me think twice about putting it in the bag. On the other hand, the gogle is nice to help you frame and focus.... I will see what responses I get from my WTB post.

Thanks again,
Joshua

 

[dspeltz]

I posted some pictures using the same 135. The focus patch is just a hair smaller than the fov. They are under general gallery (dspeltz)and labeled Watertower. It works just fine with the M8. What is really nice with the M8 is the knowledge I can shoot 150 photographs on a 2 gig card quickly and experiment as opposed to my M6 or my view camera or Hasselblad where I take alot of time. Very different approaches and shows what a super light rangefinder is good at. I along my son was using it with a 21 and 35 lens during Thanksgiving. The fact that we could shoot so many pictures without worrying about capacity resulted in some really fine very close potraits and group shots, really getting the photographer into the mix. Just what the M was made for.