Roel
Well-known
Good day. I'm new to the forum. But shooting Leica M6ttl and M4 for a couple of years already. Just found this forum and registered right away! Great start of the year.
I have the Leica 24mm, 50/2 and 90/2 asph and think of adding a 135mm. Since I'm not sure how much I will use it so i thought to see if i can find a cost effective solution..
Have been looking at Hektor, Elmar, Canon serenar Chrome and Steinheil. I can buy a Steinheil 135/3,5 for appr. 100 usd and a hektor for appr 175 usd and a Canon for about 200 usd.
Could you please give your perspective on these lenses. I saw somewhere on the forum some beautifull shots of the Hektor (compared to the 50 cron and Noktor), How do these other 135 mm lenses compare to the Hektor and are the worth the extra money. Also, what is the expected quality of the steinheil. This seems to be the cheapest option so far. Did I miss any other options?
Thanks in advance for any replies. I'm very interested in your advice and opinions!
Roel
I have the Leica 24mm, 50/2 and 90/2 asph and think of adding a 135mm. Since I'm not sure how much I will use it so i thought to see if i can find a cost effective solution..
Have been looking at Hektor, Elmar, Canon serenar Chrome and Steinheil. I can buy a Steinheil 135/3,5 for appr. 100 usd and a hektor for appr 175 usd and a Canon for about 200 usd.
Could you please give your perspective on these lenses. I saw somewhere on the forum some beautifull shots of the Hektor (compared to the 50 cron and Noktor), How do these other 135 mm lenses compare to the Hektor and are the worth the extra money. Also, what is the expected quality of the steinheil. This seems to be the cheapest option so far. Did I miss any other options?
Thanks in advance for any replies. I'm very interested in your advice and opinions!
Roel
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I highly recommend the 135 Tele Elmarit with eyes.
Rafael
Mandlerian
I would second the recommendation for the 135/2.8 Elmarit. Many people pass on this lens because it is big and heavy. Consequently, it can be had for a very low price. If you're willing to put up with its size and weight, you will be rewarded with some fantastic images.
By the way, welcome to the forum.
By the way, welcome to the forum.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
a black canon 135, super sharp, a good size and weight and not expensive.
nrb
Nuno Borges
Either the Hektor or the Steinheil Culminar are competent performers too.
jja
Well-known
Welcome to the forum. The 135/4 Tele-Elmar is very high performance and also affordable. I have owned mine for a short time and have been very impressed. I have not shot the ones you are asking about, so I cannot speak to them. More about the Tele-Elmar here:
http://www.kbcamera.com/teleelmar135mm.htm
http://www.kbcamera.com/teleelmar135mm.htm
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
135/2.8 Komura is good if you can find one. You might need a focusing magnifier for accuracy at close distances, since it's as fast as the Elmarit but doesn't have "eyes."
M
merciful
Guest
FPjohn
Well-known
Hecktor
Hecktor
Hello:
I can recommend a hecktor as a lens for tripod use; the 135mm f3.5 Canon (black) is a great bargin, hand holdable, sharp and inexpensive, but be sure you get one that focuses to infinity as some do not; the Komuron f3.5 is as good a performer as a Nikkor Q and cheaper but just as heavy.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
Consider a separate 135mm brightline finder, life will be good.
best of light
Frank
Hecktor
Hello:
I can recommend a hecktor as a lens for tripod use; the 135mm f3.5 Canon (black) is a great bargin, hand holdable, sharp and inexpensive, but be sure you get one that focuses to infinity as some do not; the Komuron f3.5 is as good a performer as a Nikkor Q and cheaper but just as heavy.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
Consider a separate 135mm brightline finder, life will be good.
best of light
Frank
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
I have the Tele-Elmar and it is a wonderful lens. But I also recommend the FSU Jupiter-11; very inexpensive, very light, and a terrific travel lens.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I have a 135 Elmar f4, which I use regularly and am very pleased with. It's very sharp wide open, and gets better to f8. I love the 135mm framelines on the M3 
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Hi Roel!
Welcome to the forum!
You've received good advice. I bought, at one time, the Elmarit 135/f2.8 because when I had an Elmar 90, I really didn't like having what I considered a long and slow lens (Elmars, as you know, are all f4). Hence my choice of Elmarit.
The lens is big... and it's heavy. Some people argue that the first version is slightly inferior to the second (I don't see how, but then, I never worry about those things), which has a filter size of 55mm. In any event, the goggles on this lens make it a cinch to focus and frame, because they use the 90mm framelines and magnify them 1.25 times.
Now, other purists consider the Tele Elmar 135/f4 the best and sharpest Leica ever. You may want to consider your kind of photography vis à vis your use or need of a long lens before plunging the cash. What I'd do is simply get one lens (inexpensive), try if you like the focal length and then decide to hang on to it, or sell it to purchase something different.
In case you wonder, I've attached a photo I think I took with this lens. There's another one (with the kids) that I am absolutely sure I took with the Elmarit.
Have fun shopping!
Welcome to the forum!
You've received good advice. I bought, at one time, the Elmarit 135/f2.8 because when I had an Elmar 90, I really didn't like having what I considered a long and slow lens (Elmars, as you know, are all f4). Hence my choice of Elmarit.
The lens is big... and it's heavy. Some people argue that the first version is slightly inferior to the second (I don't see how, but then, I never worry about those things), which has a filter size of 55mm. In any event, the goggles on this lens make it a cinch to focus and frame, because they use the 90mm framelines and magnify them 1.25 times.
Now, other purists consider the Tele Elmar 135/f4 the best and sharpest Leica ever. You may want to consider your kind of photography vis à vis your use or need of a long lens before plunging the cash. What I'd do is simply get one lens (inexpensive), try if you like the focal length and then decide to hang on to it, or sell it to purchase something different.
In case you wonder, I've attached a photo I think I took with this lens. There's another one (with the kids) that I am absolutely sure I took with the Elmarit.
Have fun shopping!
Attachments
colyn
ישו משיח
I have the Tele-Elmar 135mm f/4 in M mount. An outstanding performer. I hope to have the black Canon 135 f/3.5 I won on ebay in this week. I've heard it's also an excellent lens..
dadsm3
Well-known
awilder
Alan Wilder
Judging from the lenses you own, I would avoid earlier inexpensive lenses like the 135/4.5 Hektor or the Steinheil whose imagery is good but not outstanding. If money's an object because of uncertainty on lens usage, consider the 135/4 Elmar, usually found for $175-200 in very nice condition and capable of excellent imagery due to the use of lanthium glass. The 135/4 Tele-Elmar is a notch better and optically about as good as you can get by any standard but usually between $350-400 in decent shape. Version 1 of the 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit is optically comparable to the 135/4 Elmar and version 2 to the Tele-Elmar. Both 135/2.8 are fun to use but the goggle bulk makes them less portable in a lens bag than their slower slimmer brothers. The Canon 135/3.5 is a good choice for size and speed at the cost of a 135/4 Elmar. Focusing however is a more primative single helcoid design so the front rotates when focusing.
thomasw_
Well-known
another voice for the tele elmar as per my signature. i have been very happy with it on my m5.
Roel
Well-known
Gentleman,
Thank you all for your quick and explanetory replies. I was leaning towards the Hektor but am now thinking of the Elmar. The 2.8 tends to be more expensive here in Europe.
Does anybody have an example of the steinheil 135mm picture quality.
Also, any views on comparison Leica 135 mm (elmar/hektor) vs Canon/Nikon perhaps also taking into view handling and character(picture).
Thanks everybody for taking the time to post your replies.
Roel
(also shooting Rolleiflex, minox)
Thank you all for your quick and explanetory replies. I was leaning towards the Hektor but am now thinking of the Elmar. The 2.8 tends to be more expensive here in Europe.
Does anybody have an example of the steinheil 135mm picture quality.
Also, any views on comparison Leica 135 mm (elmar/hektor) vs Canon/Nikon perhaps also taking into view handling and character(picture).
Thanks everybody for taking the time to post your replies.
Roel
(also shooting Rolleiflex, minox)
Roel
Well-known
A Nikon 135/3,5 and adapter would cost as much as an Emar M. I used to think I should just buy Leica glas as it is the reference. Still I am tempted to also give the Nikon a try. Are there any users who love them more then the Leica options?
Roel
Roel
normclarke
normclarke
Roel,
If you are on a budget I would highly recommend the 1960's Elmar, they seem to be the unwanted items in the past Leica catalogue. According to E.P. the Elmar at full aperture = the Hektar at f11. I accept that the Tele-elmar is probably better again but will claim a higher price. The T.E. is rated better than the f2.8 version. If you think that the Hektar is cool try the Elmar!, Oh and welcome!
Cheers,
normclarke
If you are on a budget I would highly recommend the 1960's Elmar, they seem to be the unwanted items in the past Leica catalogue. According to E.P. the Elmar at full aperture = the Hektar at f11. I accept that the Tele-elmar is probably better again but will claim a higher price. The T.E. is rated better than the f2.8 version. If you think that the Hektar is cool try the Elmar!, Oh and welcome!
Cheers,
normclarke
Dralowid
Michael
I vote for the 135 Tele Elmar. I've had one now for about five years and it is handy and useable on an .72 M6, particularly with the 1.25 magnifier. It fits in the bag and lacks the bulk and weight of the 2.8 Elmarit. Mine comes from the first year of production but I think the optical design never changed and I am very happy with the results. Not too expensive in the UK either. Try and get one complete with the reversible lens hood. The fact that the lens remained in production for such a long time essentailly unchanged must mean something.
Beware of the older 135s, particluarly pre-war, I think they are prone to flare.
Michael
Beware of the older 135s, particluarly pre-war, I think they are prone to flare.
Michael