Leica BIN Bargain on *Bay!!

SolaresLarrave

SolaresLarrave

My M5s need red dots!
Local time
9:08 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,662
I must take a pass on THIS ONE. but somebody here must want to have a nice 135 lens. I just don't know if it's an Elmar or Elmarit, but, for that price, it's worth a try.

Have fun!

Richard, if you snatch it, will you post a shot of your M3 with it?
 
Well, to be honest, I have gotten a whole lot less than 50 dollars of use out of my canon 135...I certainly would not have bought it had I realized how useless it is to me on an M...
 
That is a "steal" at $50. Brian nailed it: a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor in "M" mount.

A few months back I was lucky enough to pick up an old black 135mm Hektor made just after WW2 for $9.95. It's LTM, of course, but coated and the glass is perfect. Pictures I've taken with it are everything I could ask for.

Whoever won the lens in question has gotten a genuine bargain. The Hektor doesn't get the respect it deserves. People tend to overlook it, possibly because of the f/4.5 aperature. That doesn't have the appeal of an f/2.8 or larger.

Walker
 
StuartR said:
Well, to be honest, I have gotten a whole lot less than 50 dollars of use out of my canon 135...I certainly would not have bought it had I realized how useless it is to me on an M...
Click to expand...

Stuart, you do know that you can get a screw mount to bayonet adapter, don't you? With it, you can use your screw mount Canon 135 on your M body.
 
Frank, I actually have the adapter, it is just that I have not found the 135 to be a particularly useful focal length for a 35mm rangefinder. I find that the 90/2.8 or 75/1.4 provide even less depth of field, are easier to focus, and are not as bulky (at least the 90 tele-elmarit M...). Since they focus closer, they are able to achieve the same degree of isolation in portraits. The framelines are much larger and easier to frame with, consequently they focus more precisely. Finally, I really don't like how the whole barrel rotates with the Canon 135, and how the aperture is so sticky. I would sell it if not for the fact that I think it would be a waste...it was only 100 dollars in the first place, and I am keeping it around in case I have a time when I need the extra reach. I can see how they are a great advantage for rangefinders with higher mag finders, or as a low cost alternative to some of the shorter, faster portrait lenses. But for me, it just isn't worth it.
 
Stu, you're listing all the reasons why I sold my Elmar 90/4.

However, there are times (increasingly frequent in recent days) when I wish I had a long lens, like a 90/2.8 at least. Hence, I kinda lust for a T-E or a 'cron, but only once and once only did I really wish I had a 135mm.

However, had I been able to imagine it was going to go for $50, I would have tried.

Misleading auction, right? I assumed the $125 was the reserve price.
 
Sorry, I was exaggerating...I am sure I would find more use from the lens if I were a better photographer.
 
even though i just bought a 135 for the p i'm not sure of it's usefullness either.
just seems kinda long for a rf. i'm thinking the 85 or 100 might be my normal long lens and the 135 for special occasions.
the choice of 85 or 100 will depend on which camera i take with me, p or 7.
i'm thinking p=50 & 100 --- 7 = 85 and eventually 35.

this could change at a moments notice though...

joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom