Canon LTM Opinions on the Canon 135mm f/3.5 chrome lens

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
colyn

colyn

ישו משיח
Local time
2:45 PM
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
4,532
I found this lens in a local camera shops junk box with case, caps, hood, and finder. It's somewhat heavy for a lens of its size.
Left the store with it after paying $20 but haven't had the chance to try it out and was wondering if it is a good/bad lens..
 
it is a great lens.
I hardly ever use this lens, somthing about a 135 focal lenght on a rf camera does not make a lot of sense to me.
 
Fine lens. Certainly obviously better than my 1946 coated Hektor 135/4.5. But, it makes the camera very front heavy. One of the elements is very thick.

The Canon 135/4.0 is smaller (40mm filter ring), but no lighter.
 
For $20 it is an exceptional lens! :p
I have the later black version. I find I don't use this leength very much and therefore it is not worth paying a lot for it. If you really want to make use of it, the Canons prior to the P with the variable mag finder work wonderfully wth the 1.35 setting.

Kim
 
Damn you, I need to find something like that... (lol been look for a tele for my Canon P for a wee bit now)
:D
 
Every thing Kim said times 2. I have the black with proper hood & external finder. It makes a heck of a package on the CL let me tell you :cool: but it does produce wonderful images. For $20 you got a heck of a deal.

William
 
xayraa33 said:
it is a great lens.
I hardly ever use this lens, somthing about a 135 focal lenght on a rf camera does not make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

I've used my Tele-Elmar on my M6 a lot lately. Found it gives me the tight framing I need for some shots.
I may or may not use it much but I couldn't pass it up at the price. This way if I need it I'll have it.
 
kb244 said:
Damn you, I need to find something like that... (lol been look for a tele for my Canon P for a wee bit now)
:D
Click to expand...

The owner of the shop goes to a lot of estate sales. He'll buy photo gear for next to nothing and throw it in a box which I'll pick through from time to time.
Just got lucky today.
 
colyn said:
I've used my Tele-Elmar on my M6 a lot lately. Found it gives me the tight framing I need for some shots.
I may or may not use it much but I couldn't pass it up at the price. This way if I need it I'll have it.
Click to expand...
no, for 20 dollars no one in their right mind would pass that up.
 
They seem to be very numerous in most of the webshops for little $$$. Why the number I don't know. The latest black version is very sharp.
 
Not a scarce lens, and certainly not a lightweight one. That said, it's sharp and very well made. You got a nice buy, worth 4-5 times what you paid.

There is also a chrome 3.5. That one has a front element that can be removed and used in a focusing mount on the Canonflex, the first Canon SLR. Of course, it can also be used on the later models, but no real need for it..

The late black version is also a very nice lens, and a bit lighter. It's one of the few 135's that I do take along on occasion.

Harry
 
colyn said:
Left the store with it after paying $20 but haven't had the chance to try it out and was wondering if it is a good/bad lens..
Click to expand...
This would probably have to be the steal of the year, if your lens is in at the very least "good" condition (no scratches on glass, no fogging, it focuses correctly...well, all other cosmetic conditions be d@mn3d)

I have the black version, and I like it a lot, I hardly use it, but it is fantastic. The chrome version must be heavy, like others here have said, but optically, I'm certain it is the same. I don't even use the lens hood on it, it's how reasonably resistant to flare it is. Wide open it is very nice, and stopped down is even better.

$20... wow.
 
We forget, sometimes, that the 135 was the 2nd most important fl to most people back in the day. The first lens made by Canon was a 135/4 that started trial production in 1941.

Modern RFer's don't seem to have much use for anything longer than ~90mm but back in the day, the 135 was often the second lens bought and frequently was the only add-on lens bought. It doesn't hurt that it's a relativly easy to design length, but it still behooved the companies to make good ones. Which leaves many nice & cheap ones for those of us who _like_ that FL... :D

William
 
We'll have apple trees in the spring...

We'll have apple trees in the spring...

Mine crapped out yesterday...focus got progressively stiffer, and finally it completely "seized" :)D ), only seconds after I got this last series, with the R-D1...

326850295_987904a340.jpg


326850297_328cd0fd33.jpg


326850298_fb6b54b175.jpg


326850300_4aa88209c4.jpg


326850303_6421643148.jpg
 
Sounds like a relube is in order. ;)

Kim

SteveM(PA) said:
Mine crapped out yesterday...focus got progressively stiffer, and finally it completely "seized" :)D ), only seconds after I got this last series, with the R-D1...
Click to expand...
 
Kim Coxon said:
Sounds like a relube is in order. ;)

Kim
Click to expand...


I don't know...it is ungodly tight...when I can get it to closest focus (fully extended) there are now deep scratches visible on the barrel. Maybe something got lodged in there somehow. Just prior to this, it was silky smooth, although heavy, of course. And it doesn't seem readily apparent how to separate the focus ring from the mount part.

Anyway Colyn...it's a fine lens. I use (used?) mine all the time. Half the battle is just getting it to your shooting locale. There are many more pix with it in my gallery.

Think I'll look for a black one next. Knew I shoulda bought Joe's way back when...:(
 
SteveM(PA) said:
Think I'll look for a black one next. Knew I shoulda bought Joe's way back when...:(
Click to expand...

Glad you didn't - as I did :angel: and it is a very sweet specimine of the type :D

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