If you went for 75 & 135mm (instead of say 50 & 90mm)

[Rob-F]

I tried using a 135mm on my .72 finder bodies. I just couldn't get used to the tiny framelines. I no longer remember which 135 I had. I do remember that the lens head could be unscrewed from the mount, for use with a Visoflex II. I remember there was an issue with the version I had, in that some of them were said to have been issued with a focusing mount of an incorrect length.

If I were to use a 135mm on my Leicas, I would pick up an M3 to maximize both the image in the finder and the focusing accuracy; or if I wanted an exposure meter on the camera (and I would) then I would pick up a .85 model, as the OP intends to use. His .85 M7 would be ideal for the purpose. The Visoflex II or III might be a good option, except for the weight and bulk. You actually can use the metering function when the Visoflex is in use, by flipping up the mirror and looking at the meter display in the camera's finder. But no: it's too heavy, cumbersome, and slow.

I do have and use the original 90mm chrome Elmarit; the thin Tele-Elmarit; and now the APO-Summicron. 90 mm is the longest lens I care to use on my Leica rangefinders. I use the 1.25x magnifier on my .72 bodies to ensure focusing accuracy at 90mm and F/2. I believe the OP's .85 M7 has sufficient accuracy at 135mm and F/2.8; but I still think the magnifier would be a good idea, making the 135mm frame easier to see, and boosting focusing accuracy still more.

 

[WJJ3]

That's a lot of magenta polluting the image. The downside of these older, uncorrected lenses.

My all-time favorite short tele was the CV 2,5/125 APO. The one lens I regret selling.

Magenta isn't a color so you can't really see it...

Seriously though, magenta polluting the image? Do you need me to move the WB slider a little for you? A bit of a color cast in a jpeg from a scan of color negative film can hardly be attributed to the lens. Have you done much scanning or photo editing? How do you judge lens color cast from a frame of color negative film? Also, how uncorrected do you think a Minolta MD 135mm lens is?

 

[Godfrey]

Magenta isn't a color so you can't really see it...

...

Huh?

Magenta is a primary color in the subtractive color set (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow or CMY for short) used in color negative printing. Of course you can see it ...

I'd have dialed it out before posting the photo, but eh? it wasn't important to the intent of your post, I guess. (Using the JPEG, a -41 setting on the Tint slider in LR Classic toward the green end removes it, but over-accentuates the greens. Going to HSL and toning down both the Green and the Magenta by about -10 to -15 on top of that gives a neutral, natural color balance to my eye.)

G

 

[f.hayek]

Magenta isn't a color so you can't really see it...


Seriously though, magenta polluting the image? Do you need me to move the WB slider a little for you? A bit of a color cast in a jpeg from a scan of color negative film can hardly be attributed to the lens. Have you done much scanning or photo editing? How do you judge lens color cast from a frame of color negative film? Also, how uncorrected do you think a Minolta MD 135mm lens is?

Reminds me of the purple cast from chromatic aberration when I used older uncorrected telephoto lenses. Perhaps that was the nature of your lighting conditions.

 

[WJJ3]

Huh?

Magenta is a primary color in the subtractive color set (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow or CMY for short) used in color negative printing. Of course you can see it ...

I'd have dialed it out before posting the photo, but eh? it wasn't important to the intent of your post, I guess. (Using the JPEG, a -41 setting on the Tint slider in LR Classic toward the green end removes it, but over-accentuates the greens. Going to HSL and toning down both the Green and the Magenta by about -10 to -15 on top of that gives a neutral, natural color balance to my eye.)

G

Is it really a color though?

Can I send you more photos to edit for me?

 

[WJJ3]

Reminds me of the purple cast from chromatic aberration when I used older uncorrected telephoto lenses. Perhaps that was the nature of your lighting conditions.

Probably better to shoot your photos with a corrected lens.

 

[F456]

Rob F, for some reason I don't find I get on too well with the magnifiers whereas given the right subject I am OK with even the unassisted .72 as well as the mentioned .85 finders even with a 135mm — most but not all of the time.

For the moment I'm going to concentrate on using what I've got that I don't use so often before making any decisions on reducing/increasing/changing any lenses. That means largely using my 50 and 90 more and making a point of taking my camera out more often on the off chance. And instead of taking two cameras as I have got in the habit of doing, just taking one and not having to stop and think which to use!

But ultimately I'd love to have the Apo 75 and 135 for colour slide shooting!