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

[F456]

Leaving aside historical reasons for Leica's development of various focal lengths at different times, I am tempted to go 75 & 135 — whether older 60s-80s glass designs or the newer Apo-Summicron ASPH & Apo-Telyt designs — for longer than wide-angle photography with my .85x finder M7 camera. I prefer narrower rather than wider lengths for landscape photography, which often involves townscapes taken from round a bay and looking in from from a seaward angle. Also I do a lot of general purpose people photography and am not put off by the viewing method of a Leica M-camera for the longer lengths even if an SLR is most people's, even Leica users', choice above 50mm. As an aside, most of my Leica photography has been with 21, 28 and 35mm but I need a break and am drawn increasingly to the middle and longer end of the spectrum for a slightly calmer effect.

I'd be keen to hear if you use these two focal lengths: what you use them for and how you have found the experience. If you used or have gone back to using the more traditional 50mm & 90mm, maybe instead of or as well as the 75mm what are your feelings about your results?

I have used the 75mm Summilux in the past to photograph make-up work in progress for actors before a play. I liked the results a lot but the 135mm is a length I have used a lot less. I quite fancy it as a length that is not so usual nowadays and so perhaps to add a bit of individuality or even nostalgia as well as simply to get more magnification. Anyway, over to you to hear your thoughts and findings! I would expect to use these lenses at differing distances, obviously a bit closer in where people are involved though not normally for tight headshot crops.

Tom

 

[WJJ3]

I carry a Minolta 135/2.8 for landscape photography with my SLRs sometimes and really enjoy it. To me it is so much more telephoto than 90~100mm, and it really allows selective cropping of the landscape. I have not used 135mm or 75mm on my Leicas though...

A couple recent ones from the Minolta lens:

Shinmoe

nihonjika

 

[F456]

Thanks for sharing your pictures, WJJ3. I see what you mean about looking much more tele than a 100/105, especially in your deer picture; that's a nice shot. I used to shoot with a 180/2.8 on my Nikon and that was also a very nice length — I used it for sport but also for dog portraits where it really shone! Now I use a 70-200/2.8 Gii for sport but wouldn't want to hike that around for landscape and general interest pictures.

Tom

PS: I have never used a Minolta but a now-departed friend of mine always maintained they made some of the best lenses.

 

[Canyongazer]

Tom, since you seem to like the Nikon 70-200 2.8 other than weight, how about Nikon's 70-200 f4?
I swapped my 2.8 for that lens to reduce both weight and volume. Find it quite satisfying.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

F456, you did state your preference for the longer view, and that is significant. I've owned and used 4 or 5 different 90s, the 135 f4 as well as the goggled 135 2.8 Elmarit, and the 75mm Summilux. The 50/90 combo is my preference. The 75 Summilux/Summicron 90s are heavier lenses. The 135 f4 is pretty tiny in the viewfinder and the 135 goggled lens is big and bulky to use and carry. I've always preferred the handling of the 35/50 Summicrons and the fat tele-elmarit as my ideal balance with M cameras.
For the cost as well as the handling my preference is an SLR with the telephoto, whether its my favourite Nikkor 105 /180 combo, or the smaller Pentax MX or LX with an 80-200. I suppose if it were necessitated by viewer/landscape subject distance, i could live with a 135mm goggled more-or-less permanently mounted on an M....but for the way i view things the 135mm has always been an either/or lens......either it's too long for close subjects or too short for far subjects. Good luck with your selection process.

 

[Godfrey]

Tom,

I love using longer focal lengths to pull in/isolate details and flatten the perspective in landscapes. I have the Summarit-M 75/2.4, M-Rokkor 90/4, and Hektor 135/4.5 that I've used on RF bodies (M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, as well as M4-2). I use these also on the Leica SL (in the past) and the APS-C format Leica CL (now), along with a few R lenses (90/2, 135/2.8, 180/4).

Focusing critically and framing are a bit harder with the RF bodies, but take your time to learn them and it becomes second nature. Here are some samples in two albums, taken with the Hektor 135mm and M9/M-D262, on my flickr stream ... Click the image to see the album.

trees:

Winter Trees in Fog​

details:

Walk in Setting Sun 2016​

Nowadays, shooting mostly with the CL in digital capture, I use the 50, 75 and 90 mm lenses more than the 135mm to net equivalent 75, 115, and 135 mm FoV choices ... 135mm gets a little long for hand-held shooting when I want fine detail without camera shake, I tend to pull out the tripod when I'm using it for landscape and detail work. All of these lenses are small and light, wonderful to carry when walking and when you just don't want to deal with the effort of a heavy kit.

Any choice that nets what you want to shoot with and what your vision is looking for is good. 🙂

G

 

[Doug A]

I have a 90/4 Elmar and a 135/3.5 LTM Canon that I use with my Barnacks. The 90 is part of my regular 50 + 90 travel kit. I can only reliably use it hand held at 1/250 or faster. I use the 135 on a tripod to photograph wildlife and boat traffic on the lake. I have no trouble focusing either 90 or the 135 with the Barnack's 1.5:1 magnified rangefinder. I also have an 85/1.9 LTM Canon that I very seldom use. It's very big, very heavy and very demanding to focus.

 

[F456]

Tom, since you seem to like the Nikon 70-200 2.8 other than weight, how about Nikon's 70-200 f4?
I swapped my 2.8 for that lens to reduce both weight and volume. Find it quite satisfying.

Canyongazer, a good idea and funnily enough I have used that lens recently and was bowled over by the results (on a D5: I definitely needed AF for the assignment). But by a quirk of fate the 2.8 was cheaper though virtually new so I was happy to go with that for AF-necessary tasks and the weight wasn't a problem in the work done with that one so far.

BUT — my fault for not being clearer — in this thread it is specifically Leica I'm looking at as I would like to work with Ilford b&w film (FP4plus and HP5plus) and even more with colour slide film on an M7 with the larger x.85 viewfinder. Not for sport but for my general interest and weight-free scenic and people photography. I did have an M8 for digital ten years ago but decided I was happier with film for M photography: fewer worries about detectable focus shift, magenta casts, IR filters etc.

Tom

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Well, since I have a strong preference for wide lenses (I consider a 50 a telephoto), I'm not the best person to answer this. I can't speak to the 135 focal length, having never found it usable, but I do use a 75, albeit infrequently. I would suggest you look at the CV 75 f/2.5 in LTM; you mention that "weight free" scenic photography is important, and this lens is tiny and light, smaller than some fast 50's. Plenty sharp, with a neutral rendering, so it's good for landscape work. Best of all, still available new, and cheaply, from Camera Quest!

 

[Godfrey]

... I did have an M8 for digital ten years ago but decided I was happier with film for M photography: fewer worries about detectable focus shift, magenta casts, IR filters etc.

The M8 was Leica's first digital M quite a long, long time ago. With longer lenses like these and a modern digital M body, none of those issues would be apparent.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a film M at all. I don't use it all that often, but I always enjoy shooting with my M4-2 and wouldn't be without it. I'm fine with the .72x finder as I often also use the 35mm lens on it as well. 🙂

My old Hektor 135 mm is roundly dissed as one of the worst Leica lenses ever, and super-cheap even in perfect condition as a result. It seems to work just fine regardless, on film and digital. 😀

G

 

[F456]

F456, you did state your preference for the longer view, and that is significant. I've owned and used 4 or 5 different 90s, the 135 f4 as well as the googled 135 2.8 Elmarit, and the 75mm Summilux. The 50/90 combo is my preference. The 75 Summilux/Summicron 90s are heavier lenses. The 135 f4 is pretty tiny in the viewfinder and the 135 goggled lens is big and bulky to use and carry. I've always preferred the handling of the 35/50 Summicrons and the fat tele-elmarit as my ideal balance with M cameras.
For the cost as well as the handling my preference is an SLR with the telephoto, whether its my favourite Nikkor 105 /180 combo, or the smaller Pentax MX or LX with an 80-200. I suppose if it were necessitated by viewer/landscape subject distance, i could live with a 135mm goggled more-or-less permanently mounted on an M....but for the way i view things the 135mm has always been an either/or lens......either it's too long for close subjects or too short for far subjects. Good luck with your selection process.

Deardorff38, I am familiar with the goggled 135/2.8 Elmarit from over twenty years ago and it definitely wasn't a fast-handling lens though I loved it — for still lifes of all things! The magnifiers somehow concentrated my attention, almost as thought using an inconvenient setup made me work harder for a good result. And I can identify with your preference for SLR 105/180 as all the Nikkors in those lengths, both MF and AF seem to be superb.

I do and have used the smaller, wider Leica lenses habitually but as for the longer M lengths I feel that with the right choice of 75 and/or (probably and) 135, which will most likely be the Apo-Asph 75/2 and the Apo 135/3.4 the setup won't be too unwieldy. Part of it may just be that after using Nikons for assignments, amateur though they are, I like the Leica experience for my own recreation, especially with the colour slides the lenses produce.

So I suppose my question is still to ask those who have used 50 and 90 or 75 and 135 on Leica what they liked or didn't like with one setup compared with the other.

Tom

 

[F456]

Godfrey, I know the more modern bodies would be better for colour etc and that the longer lenses, especially the post-Mandler ones, are to all intents and purposes free of focus shifts. However for digital I took up Nikon after giving the M8 a couple of years of good and usually successful but sometimes frustrating use and still have fun and good results with that and the Fuji X-system and will stick with them now. That's sideline work use (in the loosest sense of the word 'work') rather than for myself alone.

Film photography I still love the most and especially with Leica. I have used some older lenses that some have dissed and later come to love. A very large number of my best pictures since I first moved from an Olympus Trip 35 to a Leica M6 in the early 90s have been shot with the Summilux-M 35mm; no distortion to speak of, fabulous quality right down through the apertures till the last couple of stops and a dreamy but centrally still sharp rendering opened up. I learnt about it from some books by Roger Hicks I stumbled on, only days after I had just heard (seen) the word Leica for the first time, in a Leica advert by the British newspaper photojournalist Mike Maloney in the pages of a magazine.

 

[F456]

I like these shots very much, Godfrey, and they also illustrate why I prefer longer (not beyond let's say 200mm usually) lenses for scenic pictures. And sometimes when I see a very good picture I realize I can't begin to guess what focal length category was used!

 

[F456]

Doug, I'm not familiar with the Canon lens but I have heard of (not used) the Leitz Elmar 90/4. I expect it's still competitive today. I had a 1974-1990 Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 which I liked a lot especially as it was small to carry round with a 35 and a 50 but looking back now the results from it were a little bit flat. I only notice that when looking at the 35 and 50 shots alongside.

Tom

 

[F456]

Retro-Grouch, I will definitely have a look into that lens. Certainly I am expecting the 75 to get more use where small, fast handling and light will matter. The 135 is for more respectfully distant work!

Tom

 

[presspass]

I do use the 75 and 135 as part of a four-lens kit. The other two are 21 and 35. The 75 replaces the 50 and is used as a long standard. The Leica 135s produce excellent results, including the heavy and slow 2.8. I have, and use, older and newer versions of the 75 and 135; I try to pair the old 75 Summilux with the 135 2.8 and the 75 Summicron with the APO 135 3.4. I do not carry a 50 when working with these lenses as part of the four-lens set. The only time I don't use the 75 Summilux is with my M8 - my only digital Leica. The combination does not focus accurately when the lens is wide open.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, I know the more modern bodies would be better for colour etc and that the longer lenses, especially the post-Mandler ones, are to all intents and purposes free of focus shifts. However for digital I took up Nikon after giving the M8 a couple of years of good and usually successful but sometimes frustrating use and still have fun and good results with that and the Fuji X-system and will stick with them now.
...
A very large number of my best pictures since I first moved from an Olympus Trip 35 to a Leica M6 in the early 90s have been shot with the Summilux-M 35mm; no distortion to speak of, fabulous quality right down through the apertures till the last couple of stops and a dreamy but centrally still sharp rendering opened up. ...

Sure, whatever works for you is great! I have several other digital cameras, sold my last digital M when I found the CL body suited my needs/desires better. The photos are the important part, not what brand or body camera—or "film vs digital"—that you use. 🙂

I have that same lens, a 1972 Summilux 35mm. One of my long time favorites, a lens I use a tremendous lot of the time. Wide on the M4-2, normal on the CL. Superb imaging quality and "dial your favorite rendering by aperture" performance. A piece of Walter Mandler genius.

I like these shots very much, Godfrey, and they also illustrate why I prefer longer (not beyond let's say 200mm usually) lenses for scenic pictures. And sometimes when I see a very good picture I realize I can't begin to guess what focal length category was used!

Thank you for the compliment! 😀

G

 

[oftheherd]

Well, since I have a strong preference for wide lenses (I consider a 50 a telephoto), I'm not the best person to answer this. I can't speak to the 135 focal length, having never found it usable, but I do use a 75, albeit infrequently. I would suggest you look at the CV 75 f/2.5 in LTM; you mention that "weight free" scenic photography is important, and this lens is tiny and light, smaller than some fast 50's. Plenty sharp, with a neutral rendering, so it's good for landscape work. Best of all, still available new, and cheaply, from Camera Quest!

I re-started in photography about 1974. Previously I had used normal lenses only. I got an SLR and fromreading the magazines I realized I could only improve by getting a lot of lenses, preferably teles. The PX offered a kit of a 135 and 28 lenses. Shortly after, I got an 18mm from Spiratone along with a 35 mm.

Although I got several telephotos,after that I didn't use them that much, but like you, I began to prefer wide lenses. Still do.

But more to the subject of this thread, I used to have a Contax replica, with 35, 50, 85, and 135 lenses. The camera was fine, I just still prefer wide lenses and the 35 doesn't seem very wide to me.

But OP,only you can decide your own preferences.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have a lot of 135mm lenses in Leica mount.

But this 1937 13.5cm F4 CZJSonnar converted to Leica mount using a J-11 focus mount is my favorite. This lens has uncoated optics, but a beautiful bloom. The colors are "just different" from the other lenses.









The J-11 mount only focuses to ~6ft, the focus is accurate across the full range at F4.

Of the lenses that "you can just buy"- The late Black Canon 135/3.5 is the exceptional. Countered by finding one with clean glass- inner elements prone to etching. The Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 is much heavier, "almost as sharp"- but not prone to damage.

 

[Dralowid]

The 135 f4 Tele Elmar is a stunning lens and earlier versions cheap too (for a Leica lens). I think it is a Mandler design and remained in production for many years optically unchanged. Not too unwieldy either.