perrycas
Newbie
I am after any info or opinions on how the canon stacks up against the Leitz, its certainly cheaper but i am not finding much on the net about the Canon. I have Fuji xpro 1 - not a film cam. I am really going to use it as you would a 200mm which is what it will be on that camera. So its for the extra reach, that i have been noting that the elmarit is very nice at.
uhoh7
Veteran
Will have to dig up my samples, but canon is no slouch. good rep and dirt cheap, I paid like 70usd at Keh. Should be a thread on it, in canon sub-forum.
My tele-elmarit 90 from 80s beats it, but that's a 600 lens minimum.
I would take the canon, but I'm no expert on the Leitz.
All those Black canon Rfs are good
perrycas
Newbie
Thanks U, Do the coatings, or lack of, limit its colour abilities?? I have read that the Canon is good with BW but haven't got much on this lens at all.
peterm1
Veteran
I have not seen a direct comparison but I can say both are superb lenses. As you say the Canon is obviously much cheaper but this is not because it is a significantly poorer quality lens or poorer performer. I have one still and crank it up now and then. I have owned a few in my life - both chrome and black/chrome. Each performed exceedingly well - close enough to the Leica. The black and chrome version has good coating - single coating, I am sure, not multi-coating. From memory it is blueish color and its quite hard - unlike many coatings of the era so you often find the lenses in excellent condition. Color rendition is excellent in this lens (and in all Canon LTM lenses that I have used).
BTW there is an earlier f4 version (that may only be available badged as "Serenar".) By reputation, these are not as good lenses optically. In the couple I have tried I have also found that they tend to suffer from back focus issues on a rangfinder camera (not a problem with a camera that allows you to focus on the LCD screen). Maybe that is an endemic problem I am not sure. But I suspect it it. It is not my experience that the f3.5 lens has the same issues. In general they are in fact, remarkably issue free.
But there are some disadvantages. First 135mm is problematic for someone shooting a "traditional rangefinder" camera with frame lines for this focal range. To make things even harder on a cropped camera like the M8 the 135mm becomes something more like 200mm as you have pointed out - auxilliary finders for this focal length are hard to find (one option being a Tewe finder which in some versions has suitable frame lines). Of course if using these on a camera which allows focusing on the LCD then that's not an issue.
The main disadvantage of the Canon lens specifically is its long throw - it takes a fair amount of time to focus from near to far away. But once it is focussed then boy, is it sharp! (Sorry I don't have images to post).
I have not personally used the Leica 135mmf4 but have seen many reports and many images posted on the web and in books on Leica and can say based on these that it too is superb.
If you can afford the Leica - get it. It is a better lens in some respects (its certainly a more modern lens and in my view is a little more usable) But if not then don't be afraid of buying a Canon they really are very very good.
BTW there is an earlier f4 version (that may only be available badged as "Serenar".) By reputation, these are not as good lenses optically. In the couple I have tried I have also found that they tend to suffer from back focus issues on a rangfinder camera (not a problem with a camera that allows you to focus on the LCD screen). Maybe that is an endemic problem I am not sure. But I suspect it it. It is not my experience that the f3.5 lens has the same issues. In general they are in fact, remarkably issue free.
But there are some disadvantages. First 135mm is problematic for someone shooting a "traditional rangefinder" camera with frame lines for this focal range. To make things even harder on a cropped camera like the M8 the 135mm becomes something more like 200mm as you have pointed out - auxilliary finders for this focal length are hard to find (one option being a Tewe finder which in some versions has suitable frame lines). Of course if using these on a camera which allows focusing on the LCD then that's not an issue.
The main disadvantage of the Canon lens specifically is its long throw - it takes a fair amount of time to focus from near to far away. But once it is focussed then boy, is it sharp! (Sorry I don't have images to post).
I have not personally used the Leica 135mmf4 but have seen many reports and many images posted on the web and in books on Leica and can say based on these that it too is superb.
If you can afford the Leica - get it. It is a better lens in some respects (its certainly a more modern lens and in my view is a little more usable) But if not then don't be afraid of buying a Canon they really are very very good.
Brian Legge
Veteran
A few with the Canon 135mm:
Near focus (negatives were sharper than my scanner):
Directly in to the sun on a hazy day:
Focused at infinity:
I can't compare the lens to the Leica as I haven't used it. For my rare use of 135, the lens worked well. I ended up selling it and picking up the 100mm for compactness. as my chrome 135mm took up too much bag space and weight for my minimal use of it.
Near focus (negatives were sharper than my scanner):
Directly in to the sun on a hazy day:
Focused at infinity:
I can't compare the lens to the Leica as I haven't used it. For my rare use of 135, the lens worked well. I ended up selling it and picking up the 100mm for compactness. as my chrome 135mm took up too much bag space and weight for my minimal use of it.
Roel
Well-known
I did a direct comparison with film and decided to keep the Canon. The pics were very comparable and both great.