How does the Canon 135/3.5 compare to?

[johnastovall]

i'm looking at a trade for a Canon 135/3.5 in LTM for use my IIIG.

How does it compare to the Leica 135/4.0? I have one of the ones which was in M-Mount only.

 

[David Murphy]

I don't know how it compares to the 135/4 Leica, but I just bought a 135/3.5 Canon recently. Why? Because I sold one here recently and the new owner posted photos taken with it, which were really very sharp, colorful, and contrasty. Buyers regret send me looking for another which I found thankfully. It's highly recommended, particularly the black model which is harder to find.

Framing with 135mm lenses on a rangefinder is easy too - don't let anyone discourage you. I've even had acceptable results using internal 90mm frame lines and visualizing the 135mm field, although a 135mm finder is recommended.

 

[peterm1]

Are you speaking of the Leica black Tele Elmar 135/4.0 was and is a fine lens. I recall reading the book by Brian Bower on leica Ms (Leica M Photography) and he rated this lens very highly. They have come down a lot in price over the last few years but are still as good as they ever were. Having said that you should be able to pick up a Canon 135/3.5 much more cheaply. This is also an excellent lens. I would rate them both as well worth owning. But I would go for the Canon in practice if moolah is an issue as its not that far behind in either image or build quality.

 

[Erik L]

well ill chime in. first of all the lens is low contrast compared to the 100mm 3.5. it is also much more flare resistant. since I have the old version, it is quite heavy, very bothersome to carry. heavier than my slr lens, FD 135 F2!

i only got it becasue they are so cheap, i paid $40 or so and the optics are completly perfect, prabably from neglect.

 

[John Shriver]

Much higher contrast than the Hektor 135/4.5. (My Hektor is coated.)

 

[Bill58]

IF you have a need for one, it's a steal. It's a fine lens, but super cheap. I prefer the all-black and latest version.

 

[raid]

I sold my Canon 135/3.5 black and with finder for a very reasonable price. It was a very sharp lens. I also have the Nikkor 135/3.5, which is equally sharp but costs more. Both lenses are superb and relatively inexpensive.

 

[Erik L]

IF you have a need for one, it's a steal. It's a fine lens, but super cheap. I prefer the all-black and latest version.

oh i found why mines so heavy, the thing comes apart for the canoflex canons website says mine is 565 g and the black is 424 g. mines heavier than the reflex housing 135mm f/2.5 version 🙁

 

[ferider]

Cann't find it now, but I read a comparison of the Tele Elmar and black 135/3.5 Canon once, and they were pretty much on par, which also reflects my own experience. Even though half stop slower, I do prefer the Tele Elmar, since it's smaller and 39mm filters go together with other lenses.

If you decide for the Canon, get the black one, not much more expensive and much lighter.

Best,

Roland.