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

P

Pirate

Guitar playing Fotografer
Local time
10:03 PM
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,864
I really like the 135mm lenses for 35mm shooting. I'm talking more about Street Photography than anything. I like that it gets a closer portrait look on people without having to get in their face with a 50mm.

So I'm looking to get a 135mm with the goggles for my M3. What, if anything, should I know or consider when buying or using one of these lenses?

Thanks
 
You should know that the Elmarit 135/2.8 in particular is something of a beast, and that focusing such a long lens takes a while due to long focus throw and inherently shallow DOF. A 90 2.8 may be more practical for this application IMHO. I have the thin Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 as well and there is a world of difference between these two in terms of size and weight. A 135/4 or something like that may be your poison, but modest max aperture on a longish lens can make it a bit difficult to keep shutter speeds up where they need to be.
 
With goggles means an elmarit 135/2.8.
There are 3 or 4 versions. All slightly different. I have the first one and it is good enough for me. The goggles might be off a little bit. Prepare for a CLA anyhow.
Are you sure you want a 135 for street photography? Remember what Robert Capa said:
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" and i'm pretty sure he was right.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
I'm used to using the 135 on my Nikons, and I'm used to carrying my 80-400mm Nikkor also, so size and weight will be less than the Nikkor, so no worries there. And I do like the shallow depths of field.
 
Big and heavy, but worth every gram. A superb lens. I had one 20 years ago; sold it 10 years ago; and bought another maybe 5 years ago, when I tried it on an M8. I shall not be selling the 'new' one!

Cheers,

R.
 
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.
 
The Elmarit 135f2.8 is a beast!!!! But it is also very good, even at 2.8. The prism's in the goggles can easily dislodge and needs to be re-collimated.
An alternative is the 135f4 Tele-Elmar. If you can live the 1 stop loss of speed - it is a very good lens. Optical performance @ f4 is superb and stopping it down only increases depth of field. A bit of a "tube" but less so than the 135f2.8.
It is considered by many the best 135 you can find. Very high resolution @ f4, good contrast and fairly light - at least compared to the 135f2.8. It lacks the "sex appeal" of the faster or modern lenses - thus quite cheap. The optical formula never changed in almost 40 years - nothing Leica could do would improve it. Later they came out with the 135f3.4. I had one, but could not see a major improvement over my F 4.0 - and it was heavier. Some variations on barrel design, focus ring knurling and redesigned hood - but optically it stayed the same.
 
The googles give a bit of tunnel vision too, it must be said. You miss the usual rangefinder advantage of seeing what is going on "outside the frame", so to speak.

(The 135 2.8 is a great lens, by all means. Just... big... for a rangefinder setup)
 
The APO-Telyt is reputed to be absolutely superb.

You will want an M3, or a later camera with a 0.85 finder to focus accurately at full aperture. You may want to get the M3 and the lens calibrated to each other. Focus will be critical.

The disadvantages of an SLR are much smaller when you're working at >50mm FL, in my opinion. Personally, for this application I prefer an SLR and a short tele.

I use a Nikon FE2 and AIS 85/2, but really it could be almost anything. A Pentax MX or ME Super with an 85/2 might be even better. At least as easy to focus, even more compact. Or a Spotmatic and an 85/1.8 Super-Tak (I'm not sure anyone has made an 85 that for practical purposes is better). Or you could get a 105. Seriously, there are so many great SLR's and cheap, superb short teles out there. A Nikon FM and a 105/2.5 will be about as small as the M3 and 135, and have IQ as good or better.

Spend some time at KEH.

For me, there is a utility gap between 105 and 180. 135 almost always seems either too long, or not long enough. Even 105 is pushing it. Just my opinion, which is worth what you paid for it. ;)
 
Last edited:
I find it to be a great lens, specially on the M3 as you intend to use (although it is true that there is a tunnel efect looking through the finder, as someone mentioned before).
Not so easy to use, due to size and weight. people will probably notice you on the streets (the camera looks for "normal" people a little weird...).
I like the out of focus quality of the 135mm (bokeh). You get already some feeling of compression too.
I have been using mine through the years also on the Visoflex.
Lately got a renewed interest on this lens using it on the R5 with Leitz 14167 adapter. Wonderful combination! Also very interesting on the close-up range and to pick up far away details.
Sometime ago, I did a post on my blog, about this lens (with googles and Viso). I'm also thinking about doing a new one about using it on the R.
If interested, please follow the link below.
Greetings,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY
 
thanks for all the responses. I'm gonna try the 135 F/2.8 first. The size is still smaller than the 80-400 I carry on my Nikon so it's of no concern. I want the shallow depth of field from the 2.8 over the 4 for right now. Maybe I'll grab an F/4 and try it out also. More glass can't hurt.

That Leitz 14167 adapter sounds nice too. I'll be getting an R4s or an R5 in December.
 
I have one. In fact, my avatar was taken with it. I'm in my second. There are two versions: one with a knurled focusing ring and ribbed aperture ring, retractable two-piece built-in hood, that takes Series VII filters, and the second one, which has both rings ribbed, a one-piece lens hood, and takes 55mm filters. Apparently, there's no other change in the lens except for these very superficial details.

DAG corrects the goggles for about $50.
 
I know it's easy to second anything Tom says, but I have the 135f4 Tele-Elmar and think it's one of the finest lenses I own. And it is very inexpensive.
 
Another vote for the TE135: it renders beautifully, is sharp, and is dead cheap. I use external VF SHOOC to get a bright view with eyes-open (1:1) shooting.
 
The problems with using 135mm lenses on rangefinders are exaggerated in my view. I find they work great and are a lot of fun. The M3 is perfect for this too since it has 135mm parallax-corrected frame lines. There are several 135mm lenses around in M or screw mount and most of them are pretty good and not too expensive.
 
Tom A said:
Later they came out with the 135f3.4. I had one, but could not see a major improvement over my F 4.0 - and it was heavier. Some variations on barrel design, focus ring knurling and redesigned hood - but optically it stayed the same.
Click to expand...
I have a late version E46 Tele-Elmar 135/4, and it has essentially the same ergonomics as the Apo-Telyt described above. The aperture and focus are much more intuitive for me, the rendition is beautiful, and the "tube" look...well, it sure is a conversation piece, you can say that!

It's a lens that's very good for portraits, but I'm not so sure that it would be best for street RF portraits. I'd rather use a different FL, for starters, or an SLR lens like the Zeiss C/Y mount Sonnar 135/2.8, which has a beautiful look and can often be had for a song. I use my TE 135/4 in tandem with a 1:1 finder from Komura that is adjustable for parallax, works great, but is a slow sytem, not what I'd want for street. To speed things up, you will probably have to forgo the external finder (unless you're using a camera with in VF 135 frames) and use the RF patch to guesstimate focus point. If you want to do fancy things with framing so that your subjects aren't always center-frame, again I think the SLR option works better at this FL for that kind of application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom