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

[Canyongazer]

Canyongazer, a good idea and funnily

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.

Tom

I didn't realize a Nikon film SLR would be off your "menu."
You 'splained just fine.
I read, not so fine. 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Some of the longer lenses, 100, 105, 135 are the same optical design between SLR and RF. Nikon made a helical in F-Mount to use the 13.5cm f3.5 in RF mount, the optics unscrewed from the focus mount. The Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 introduced in 1950 remained almost the same formula through the AIS series.

There are some really good 135's, dirt cheap. The Arco Tele-Colinar 13.5cm F3.8 is one of the sharpest I have.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/324516086994

A bit more than mine was- but under $100 with shipping.

 

[Gregm61]

Leaving aside historical reasons for Leica's development of various focal lengths at different times, I am tempted to go 75 & 135 ,,,,,

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?

Tom

21-35-75-135..



I sent my 135 APO Telyt and M262 to DAG and had him adjust the cam on the lens to focus as accurately as possible on my camera and I have very little problem focusing that lens as accurately as I can any of the other lenses in the outfit.

135mm f3.4 APO Telyt..













My DSLR outfit, a Nikon Df, is along the same lines with 20mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f2 manual focus Nikkors.

 

[F456]

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.

Oftheherd, I know I tend to go for 35mm most of the time — sometimes 21/24/28 — and over the years 35mm has got me some good pictures as I like to work and interact with people from quite close (I suppose 2-5 yards). But I definitely have come to a kind of 'done all that' feeling where it feels like a change is needed and I am always struck by the effectiveness of a bit of extra distance to create space and by the selecivity of a tele. It seems to calm things down a bit, much like a normal.

So I'm interested to hear from anyone but especially tele users about the 75 and the 135. Looking at your Contax-replica reference, I miss the demise of the Contax system; I got some nice Kodachromes with a 25, 50 and 80-200 Zeiss mm setup in the early 1990s.

Tom

 

[F456]

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.

Presspass, great to hear from you and see what kit you use and your experience with it. I no longer use Leica for digital (I gave it a good go in 2007-8 when the M8 first came out and had good results with 21/2.8 Elmarit Asph and 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH but hopeless focusing problems with a 50 Noctilux f/1 at any aperture and also with 90 Summicron f/2). I soon realized this wasn't something that could easily be put right so I decided only to use the M-system for film and have continued on that course, using mainly Fuji X-Pro2 and X100F as 'digital Leicas' and latterly a Nikon D single digit for sport.

Any comments on the 75/1.4 and 75/2 Asph on your film bodies would be received with interest as I have used 75/1.4 in the past and loved it. Also I have used the 135/2.8 Elmarit. My plan is quite possibly to get the 75/2 and the 135/3.4 if I stick with Leica lenses for Leica shooting (I probably will) so any findings regarding focus shifts if any would be welcome.

I ask about the focus shifts as I read comments on RFF yesterday (different threads) about focus shifts on the 90/2 Asph though if my memory doesn't deceive me the late Erwin Puts and also Sean Reid's test led me to believe that the modern M-tele range was shift free (with test images to prove it).

Any other comparisons or thoughts on lens character etc between the two 75s you have and the two 135s also will be much appreciated. In particular the modern Apo 75 and 135 seem the most compact solution to carrying two Leica teles in regular use plus they share the 49mm filter size (though finding yellow filters now for b&w use is not easy,especially the Leica ones). I had a Hoya yellow and it jammed in my hood for the v3 28mm Elmarit.

Tom

 

[F456]

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.

Brian, I like the colour and the effect of those pictures very much. I realize I have a 13.5cm f/3.5 Nikkor with a blue front lens coating, marked Nippon Kogaku; it is a silver chrome lens with black knurled focusing and aperture rings. I bought it about 20 years ago and sold it back to the shop soon after. It was still on display nearly 10 years later so I bought it back again! I have some good shots from it on Fujichrome Provia; it works nicely for me with distant shots of townscapes in strong low and directional light late in the day. I don't often use it but it seems happiest on an F2. It was long ago Ai'd.

Still keen to get thoughts on the Leica 135s though!

Tom

 

[F456]

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.

Dralowid, I know Brian Bower spoke very highly of the Tele-Elmar in all its different housing versions and said it was basically of apochromatic quality. I believe they may have stopped and later restarted production at some point but my memory could be playing me tricks on that.

I did look it up yesterday and it ran from 1965 and like the Tele-Elmarit 90s the original body could unscrew so that you could use the optical component in a Visoflex.

This would be an excellent lens for the purposes I have in mind, in fact. I do not need it for any form of action or movement so the slightly awkward viewing arrangement would be compensated by its relatively light and compact form; for the active stuff I'd use digital and AF on another system.

May I ask what sort of thing has you reaching for your Tele-Elmar?

Tom

 

[F456]

Very compact kit with the Leica - 2 with 46mm filter and 2 with 49mm. Also liking the way the focal lengths more or less double at each stage (more or less).

Two questions: (1) do you ever use a 50mm? I find it hard to get satisfying pictures with one but all of a sudden I get there and they are the most satisfying of all. But I find it hard to get started and often leave it in the bag. (2) how do you find the 135mm f/2 Nikkor? I had one briefly but unlike the 85mm f/1.4 it didn't seem so exceptional; I traded it for a 105/1.8 which seemed a lot sharper at wider apertures. Nothing wrong with the 135 but perhaps I was spoiled by the 85!

Thanks for the photos and the feedback - really useful. Good to see the teles are in effective use with Leica - people often lead you to believe it's only a system for wides and normals.

Tom

 

[F456]

Greg, off message for a moment but how do you find the 20mm with the Df (which I imagine is for imaging purposes the same as a D4)? I ask as I am thinking of getting a 20/2.8 AiS or AF-D (optically the same or nearly the same) for my D5 but am always a bit cagey about image quality of a film-designed lens for use with modern digital. My hope is that the D5's sensor is not going to show any shortcomings as mercilessly as a crazy high megapixel body like a D850.

Thank you,
Tom

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Still keen to get thoughts on the Leica 135s though!

Tom

I remembered bringing the 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit 2nd version (Goggles, 55mm filter ring) with me that day, have a couple of shots uploaded. Took these at F4, to match the Sonnar.

 

[Gregm61]

Greg, off message for a moment but how do you find the 20mm with the Df (which I imagine is for imaging purposes the same as a D4)? I ask as I am thinking of getting a 20/2.8 AiS or AF-D (optically the same or nearly the same) for my D5 but am always a bit cagey about image quality of a film-designed lens for use with modern digital. My hope is that the D5's sensor is not going to show any shortcomings as mercilessly as a crazy high megapixel body like a D850.

Thank you,
Tom

Hi Tom.

I have no complaints with the 20mm f2.8. There are several files in my Df folder captured with the 20mm f2.8 AIS and are labelled as you see them without having to go into the image information..

https://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Nikon-Df/

I’ve never shot with a D4 but really am enjoying the Df experience. Image quality is outstanding.

I’m also using an even wider 18mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor with the Df. There are a few of those in the folder too.

 

[F456]

I remembered bringing the 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit 2nd version (Goggles, 55mm filter ring) with me that day, have a couple of shots uploaded. Took these at F4, to match the Sonnar.

Thank you, Brian. I especially like the colour shots.

By the way — pedantic point — the 135/2.8 is an Elmarit not a Tele-Elmarit as it is a long lens but without telephoto construction. In the 90 range there have been Tele-Elmarits and Elmarits, the T-Es being shorter than the Es. The 75s and other 90s are also longer focus lenses but not teles while of course the Tele-Elmar 135/4 is a telephoto!

Tom

 

[F456]

Hi Tom.

I have no complaints with the 20mm f2.8. There are several files in my Df folder captured with the 20mm f2.8 AIS and are labelled as you see them without having to go into the image information..

https://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Nikon-Df/

I’ve never shot with a D4 but really am enjoying the Df experience. Image quality is outstanding.

I’m also using an even wider 18mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor with the Df. There are a few of those in the folder too.

Thanks for sharing these pictures, Greg.

I like the way you have used those wideangles to great effect (18mm & 20mm Nikkors) and I like the restfulness and colour effects of the tele shots (especially the 135mm). So often ultrawides get used carelessly with big empty or ungeometrical space in the foreground!

The 50mm is a lens with great character. Can you guess which lens out of them all is to me absolutely stunning at the apertures you were using?

These shots have given me the confidence to use my AiS glass without any worries on the D5. (I had actually been considering splashing out on a couple of AF-E lenses but then they could only be shot at full aperture on film Nikons which would be a shame.)

Tom

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I just looked- and the 135/2.8 is marked "Elmarit", not Tele-Elmarit. But when looking through the lens "forwards and backwards", the size of the image viewed does change- which is an attribute of a telephoto lens. It is shorter than my 135/4.5 Hektor, the latter is an Anastigmat.

 

[Gregm61]

Thanks for sharing these pictures, Greg.

I like the way you have used those wideangles to great effect (18mm & 20mm Nikkors) and I like the restfulness and colour effects of the tele shots (especially the 135mm). So often ultrawides get used carelessly with big empty or ungeometrical space in the foreground!

The 50mm is a lens with great character. Can you guess which lens out of them all is to me absolutely stunning at the apertures you were using?

Tom

It’s always interesting to hear from others. I would have a hard time narrowing my own choice down to even just two. They’re all so much fun. 20+ years ago I never could have afforded them all.

The 85/1.4 was purchased almost like new but the focus was stiff and it was not focusing accurately. Midwest Photo Repair did an outstanding job lubing the focus and it now focuses tack sharp and buttery smooth.

 

[oftheherd]

Two questions: (1) do you ever use a 50mm? I find it hard to get satisfying pictures with one but all of a sudden I get there and they are the most satisfying of all. But I find it hard to get started and often leave it in the bag.

I started out using "normal" lenses, and frankly didn't even know there were other lenses 🙂p) , although my father had a couple of aux lenses for his 9x12, that fit over the normal lens for short tele and mild wide.

So normal lenses just seemed ---- ugh, normal. Once I got over feeling the need to use all my other than normal, it was easy to consider them first in my photography, and often only consider another lens after looking through the viewfinder. You may also get to that point. 😛

 

[narsuitus]

On my Leica rangefinders, I use a 35mm and a 90mm instead of 50mm and 75mm or a 50mm and 135mm.

For me, the 135 is too long for me to use on a rangefinder for shooting moving subjects.

On the other hand, I have considered a 75mm f/1.4 instead of the 90mm f/2 I now use. There are times when I would gladly give up the extra focal length reach of my 90mm for the extra light gathering of the f/1.4.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

On my Leica rangefinders, I use a 35mm and a 90mm instead of 50mm and 75mm or a 50mm and 135mm.

For me, the 135 is too long for me to use on a rangefinder for shooting moving subjects.

On the other hand, I have considered a 75mm f/1.4 instead of the 90mm f/2 I now use. There are times when I would gladly give up the extra focal length reach of my 90mm for the extra light gathering of the f/1.4.

I got some lovely images with the 75mm, but i preferred the Noctilux 50. Later when i no longer had the 75.....I found the 75 finder lines on my MP so distracting i sold it and went back (very happily) to the M4.

 

[Kisohe]

I generally shoot wide (21-35) but do have the Macro Elmarit-m 90 and use it to good effect at times. To me the 75 is too middling when I’ve got the 50/90 combo.

I do plan to aquire a 135 for a particular cityscape project that I’d like to do though. So I guess the 135 is “special purpose” lens in my world. Since they aren’t expensive it makes it doable.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[f.hayek]

I carry a Minolta 135/2.8 for landscape photography with my SLRs sometimes and really enjoy it.

nihonjika

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.