Sharpest 135mm

chris00nj

chris00nj

Young Luddite
Local time
9:23 AM
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,010
I was wondering what the sharpest 135mm is?

As for LSM lenses, I have the Hektor and found its performance to be okay, but not as good as I'd hope. I was considering the Canon 135 or the Nikkor 135 as I have read they are better.

How do they compare to the Leica M mount lenses, such as the 135 tele-elmar? Is the tele-elmar any better than the 135/2.8 Elmarit? Why do you need goggles with the 135/2.8 Elmarit?
 
Last edited:
One of the sharpest lenses that I've encountered in that focal length is the Carl Zeiss (Jena) f/4.0 135mm Sonnar -- whether it be the original black and nickle version, the prewar chrome and steel or the postwar coated version as well as the East German Jena lens.

I would expect that the Nikon RF version also would perform well (being based on the Zeiss lens).
 
The Canon 135s (either Chrome or Black and Chrome) are good value and are better performers than the Hektor f4.5. The chrome one is damn heavy though. But if it comes to that the 135mm Elmar f4 (later - bayonet mount) is much better than the Hektor also. The tele elmar is a very very good performer and these days is not all that pricey.
 
The "eyes" on the Elmarit magnify the image for greater focusing accuracy. They make use of the 90mm frame lines in the camera so you get a bigger visual image through the finder as well.

The 135 frame in the M4 and newer models is tiny, and the M2 lacks the 135 frame altogether. The Elmarit even allows you to use a 135mm lens on the M2. On the down side it makes for a big heavy bulky lens, and it's hard to store in your bag. Supposedly the f/4 Tele-Elmar is the best performer of any, but the Elmarit is certainly a close second. The 135 Canon is also an excellent lens.

Most of the longer Leitz/Leica lenses have removeable heads which can be used on short barreled mounts for use on the Visoflex, or on an SLR with an adapter.
 
Hi,
According to E.P. the Elmar at f4 = the Hektar at f11 for what that is worth. All the subsequent Leica lenses have improved on this performance. Originally the object was to improve on the Sonnar but it was not met until the Tele Elmar.

Cheers,

normclarke.
 
I've got the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 (four of them, S-Mount, LTM, and 'C'ontax) and the late-model Black Canon 135/3.5. The Canon is slightly better wide-open. That is saying a lot, because the Nikkor is very good.

Another 135 that is quite good is the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar. It is a Sonnar formula lens. Worth watching for on Ebay. Mine was under $20, but required some cleaning. I'll have to upload some shots with it, I used them for "World Rangefinder Day".

All-in-all, it is hard to find a bad 135. You can pick up really good ones for under $100.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I've got the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 (four of them, S-Mount, LTM, and 'C'ontax) and the late-model Black Canon 135/3.5. The Canon is slightly better wide-open. That is saying a lot, because the Nikkor is very good.

Another 135 that is quite good is the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar. It is a Sonnar formula lens. Worth watching for on Ebay. Mine was under $20, but required some cleaning. I'll have to upload some shots with it, I used them for "World Rangefinder Day".

All-in-all, it is hard to find a bad 135. You can pick up really good ones for under $100.
Click to expand...

Of the Canon or the Nikkor, which is better stopped down?

Does anyone have experience to compare either Canon/Nikkor and the Tele-Elmar. Is the performance of the Tele-Elmar substantially or only marginally better?
 
The sharpest for the money is the 135/4 Tele-Elmar but you'll get more keepers with the 2nd version of the 135/2.8 Elmarit because the goggles minimize focusing error unless you have a magnifier for the finder or are using an M3 with the 135/4 . Both are reasonably priced. As mentioned earlier, the 135/3.4 is the champ but only if money is no object as they sell for around $1700-1800, hardly worth the investment for that focal length in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I've never tried the Nikkor. I had a later model black Canon for years, and I was happy with it. I finally sold it in favor of the Tele-Elmar for reasons that had nothing to do with image quality. It took the same 39mm filters as my 35 and 50mm Summicrons and 90mm Elmarit. That was in the pre-photoshop era when shooting color for publication meant shooting slides, and getting correct color meant doing it when you shot the pictures. Buying another set of color correction and color compensating filters in another size was a MAJOR investment. A lesser consideration was that the lens head of the Tele-Elmar, as well as my 90 Elmarit, fit the same short focusing mount as my 65mm Elmar and I could use them all on my Visoflex II and Leicaflex SL.

I doubt that I could go back through my old B&W negatives or color slides and tell you with any surety "This is a Tele-Elmar shot and that one is a Canon shot."

Now that we're past the shooting slides for color times I sold the Tele-Elmar when I got a deal on a 135/2.8 with goggles which I mostly use on my M3 body. With today's finer grain films I can crop the image to the field of view of the 180mm. The 135/2.8 might be heavier than the 135/4 but it's a lot lighter than carrying a 180/2.8 on a Leicaflex for the occasional shot so I sold them also.
 
Last edited:
At F5.6 it's impossible to tell the difference between the Canon and the Nikkor. I have not done a direct comparison of the Tele-Colinar with them.
 
chris00nj said:
Of the Canon or the Nikkor, which is better stopped down?

Does anyone have experience to compare either Canon/Nikkor and the Tele-Elmar. Is the performance of the Tele-Elmar substantially or only marginally better?
Click to expand...

If those three lenses are different (at f4) then really only very marginally so - I have used all three and cann't distinguish them - maybe the Tele Elmar has slightly more contrast. I would make the purchase decision based on handling, filter sizes, hood price and speed (3.5 is a 3rd stop faster than f4 - doesn't really matter for speed but for portrait qualities).

Regarding the handling: Nikkor has 43mm filters, aperture ring turns with focus. For the lighter black version, there is a 43mm push-on hood. Canon has 48mm filters, comes with T-50 or T-50-2 hood. The Tele Elmar is the smallest of the bunch, has 39mm threads, and usualy is used with reversible 12575 hood.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Here is one with the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 on the Nikon SP, very late model. Close-up and Wide-Open at F3.5.

picture.php


This example looks sharper than my early LTM 13.5cm F3.5, but it is close.

Another, also wide-open but colors are more muted,

picture.php
 
Last edited:
I know it is a joy to make fun of the 135mm Hektor f 4.5 (I do it myself), but for all practical purposes it is fine. After all, it is only 35mm, this one is/was wide open:

2444417356_c425baebdb.jpg
 
I have a late model Hektar in M-Mount, had it professionally CLA'd. It's slow, lower contrast, but gives a really nice image. The rendering from it gives the illusion of a 3-D picture..

As far as making fun of it- I bought a second one in LTM, $50 Leica Lens. No Joke.
 
Brian, you have always been an advocate of 'personality' when it comes to lenses, and..............like the 'Stones' sang: "There is something about her I don't really know, she makes me cry and I don't know the reason why (sic)." Yes, I like my 135mm Hektor (LTM) f4.5, that low contrast and different color rendition just do something for me.
 
I wanted the sharpest 135 so I could enlarge the center third of a negative into an acceptable 4x6.

This is for when I may need some telephoto capabilities on a trip but don't want to bring an SLR with a long telephoto as well. I tried to use the Hektor in a similar role last year, but I didn't think the results were acceptable.

All else being equal, I prefer a lighter small lens in LTM. I don't care about the extra speed, because most of the photos would be in daylight. Does these criteria and preferences mean I should focus on the Nikkor?
 
Last edited:
Get a bigger format folder, don't fuss with 35mm. This is an original from a cheap 6x6 folder and a big crop (besides if you intend to crop why would you discrimate against a 135mm Hektor the center is the sweet spot).

3363189389_a2b2fa249e.jpg


3461468728_a7f45eafa6.jpg
 
From the postwar West German f/4 135mm Sonnar. This was shot indoors wide open (f/4.0) at 1/10 of a second on Ektachrome 100. I leaned against a post to steady the camera (Contax IIa with turret finder). I cropped to a square.

baboon.jpg


This lens lived on with the Contarex and was the basis for the f/2.8 Olympia Sonnar, another very fine lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom