I want a 135mm M-mount Lens -- what should I know?

Michael Markey said:
I`ve used a J11 and have and use a 135/4 Canon Serenar .
Can`t say that I`ve found focus to be an issue but there is a curious disconnect with the suject at that FL on an RF.
I`ve never heard anyone mention it before so it may be just me.
Click to expand...


I agree with the disconnect. I enjoyed a revival of my Tele Elmar f4 when I bought a SHOOC external 135mm finder which I will use on my M6 as well as the M2. The image is vivid and intimate for framing the shot. Great lens. Great finder.
 
Using a 135 on an RF is simply telephoto photography made difficult. An SLR does with ease what the RF struggles with when you are talking long lenses.
 
Never had a problem focusing (quickly) the 135/2.8 with goggles or the 135/4 on my M4. While the /4 is good for traveling light I much prefer the stop faster lens for DOF. It's a great portrait lens.
 
Before dumping big change into the lens, maybe you should try a less expense one to see if it is really your cup of tea. I found 135mm to be a bit too much for my shooting style and preference. I do have a chrome Canaon 135mm/3.5 with the matching viewer. Mine is LTM and I use it with a M adaptor. I might like it more with an M body but on the CL it is a bit over the top. though not the best of mates, the few times I've used it, with deliberation and work, the results have been good. The issues are not with the lens but the design limits of the CL. The CL is somewhat stressed even with the system 90mm/4. On a M series, possibly a M3 or 4 the 135 would be a far less challenge.

The 135 is the one reason I'd consider moving to an M body. The Canon can be had for not a whole lot of money and while not a Leica, it is a pleasant lens for portraits, especially when the subject is female.
 
I've had a number of 135mm lenses (4.5 - 2.8) agree with the though of looking into a Nikkor LTM.

Another crazy idea is to look at using a Nikon F or an OM-1.

The last film system I build was an RF for 50 and wider and SLR for 85 and up, though I did have a 28 for the SLR and a 105 for the RF in the room back at home/hotel.

B2 (;->
 
I have the Nikon F, and two 135mm lenses for the F-mount. This is how I already know that I enjoy the 135mm focal length, but now I want to do this type of shooting on my M3.
 
If you have an M3 you don't need the goggles of the Elmarit. Anyways the Tele-Elmar is a fantastic lens from wide open until diffraction takes over in the smaller apertures. It's VERY inexpensive too, maybe just a few more dollars than a 135 Hektor.

Phil Forrest
 
I picked up a Series 7 version of the 135/2.8, made in 1973, back in August of 2006 from Keh for $450. They've gone up quite a bit in price since then (they have a 55mm filter, meaning more current, for $645 now). I don't use it often, but it is sharp and isn't all that hard to use. I have an M6TTL 0.58x, so I use it with the 1.25x magnifier, and that combination makes focusing reasonably easy and accurate. It is clunky, but I used it for sports photography (no, really), and it worked well enough.

It won't work well with the current motor winder (not a concern for you with the M3), since you can't take the lens on or off with the winder attached, due to the battery "grip" of the winder.

Drew
 
The black 135mm Canon f3.5 is inexpensive, optically superb, and not a "beast". Check, should you purchase one, that it does focus to infinity on a M, some do not! :eek:

yours
FPJ
 
Last edited:
I agree with Tom.

I have a 135/4 tele-elmar and think it's great - both on my M3 and M8. It's a great landscape lens.

It was also my best Leica bargain - £70 at auction. I've seen them more recently for £400+
 
The 135 2.8 is a wonderful lens - Mandler design - and works well at close focus. If you want/need 2.8, it's the only game in town for a M. It's also the only 135 that works well with an M8. Mine sat for a couple of years, thanks to a 135 4.0 but went to DAG for adjustment when I got an M8. It's now used as often as the 4.0.
 
FPjohn said:
The black 135mm Canon f3.5 is inexpensive, optically superb, and not a "beast". Check, should you purchase one, that it does focus to infinity on a M, some do not! :eek:

yours
FPJ
Click to expand...

That's what I said a long time ago. Silly cheap for a really nice lens.
 
I've seen those Canon 135 lenses, and I may get one also because I have a Canon III Rangefinder so I could use it on both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom