My Tele-Elmar 135 experience

[snaggs]

Not really a review, but just my thoughts. Like most, I saw f/4 on the lens and wondered if it was going to be fast enough to blur out the backgrounds. So I borrowed it from the shop and have been shooting it for the past coupleof weeks. Heres what I found..

1. I love the compact size, fits perfectly in a "crumpler" belt pouch. So stuff some film in my pocket, and I can take my camera and two lenses out without the need for a camera bag.

2. 135mm is an excellent combination with the 35mm.. I dont find the view frame too small, infact its a great way to view a scene and select what portion you want to frame the photo. 90mm is just too short if you want to frame selective landscapes, and the 135 lets you stand a comfortable distance from your loved one for portraits (works great with wives resistant to tight close-ups!)

3. DOF at 135mm at f/4 is small enough already.. there is NO need for f/2.8 IMHO. Infact, Im going to stop down to f/5.6 for most portraits, as I got too many OOF photos where I had assumed that f/4 would be heaps. See the photo below which unfortunately got ruined by my over-estimation of the OOF.... not that the in focus area is only just larger than the small button on the colour..

(Click here for larger size)

4. Bokeh is smooth and creamy..

(Click here for larger size)

Overall, I love this lens and feel an end to needing more gear. The real difference about Leica, is I no longer angst over DPReview and every latest DSLR release, Im much more focussed on just learning the craft properly.

Daniel.

 

[snaggs]

Here you go.. heres a ruler shot.. remember that since the ruler was shot at an angle, the DOF measurement is actually less than what it would appear on the ruler.

 

[snaggs]

Someone kindly sent me a private message, pointing out that the eyes are out of focus and probably should have.

As I replied to him, I havn't got used to focussing on the eyes with the rangefinder. I find it quite hard with a moving subject (children), i. e. I have to move the focus back and forth to be sure theyre in focus, by that time they have often moved!.

What I've been doing lately is focussing on the ears, which normally poke out against a different coloured background. However, the DOF of the 135mm was less that I thought. I was aiming to have the entire head in focus (the other tactic Im using, using a higher apperture than I usually would to compensate for my focus ability).

Any tips would be welcome, its been holding back the quality of my rangefinder photos compared to what I was taking with my SLR previously. Is it just something Ill get more sensitive to noticing or are there other tricks for focussing shallow DOF?

Daniel.

 

[peter_n]

Daniel is the magnification on your M6 0.72? I have a Jupiter-11 (also f4) that I use on a 0.72 M6TTL and while I can focus OK (or at least I think I can) it could be better, especially in poor or flat lighting. I also have a 90mm lens and that is a snap to focus on my M6. I'm working on a long-term project that by necessity requires constant use of the 90 & 135mm lenses, and I'm going to get an 0.85 mag camera body for those two lenses. I've had the J-11 on a 0.85 body and it is a lot easier to focus than on a 0.72.

 

[Ben Z]

I also became the owner of a 135 T-E a few months back. Took a chance on a "Bargain" from KEH at $265 and for the life of me I can't see a mark on it, inside or out. It's a wonderfully sharp lens and usably longer than my 90s. I don't mind the 135 frame in the finder of my M6 or M4, it's only marginally smaller than the one in my M3 and I've had no focusing mishaps so far and I've pretty much always shot it at f/4 or maybe 5.6. Great lens.

 

[snaggs]

Yes, my M6 is .72, I'll update the thread once I get some shots back done at f/5.6.. hopefully alot more will be infocus!

Daniel.