Sharpest 135mm

Besides sharpness, I selected the Tele-Elmar for its compatibility with my 90mm lenses: the caps, IUFOO hoods, filters. The TE and Elmarit 90 v1 share OTZFO for Visoflex focussing. While not strictly APO, I find the TE rendering to be pleasant and well-behaved. As for sharpness, judge for yourself:

rico9.jpg

​

rico9b.jpg

​
Image was shot on a Canon 1Ds DSLR with Viso adapter. The 1x-scale crop looks fairly detailed. :) Both images are lightly sharpened.
 
chris00nj said:
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?
Click to expand...

The Tele-Elmar 4/135 is actually quite compact, especially the early version (same optical formula), which is tapered. As a bonus the optical head can be removed and used on a Visoflex.

This is an extremely sharp lens. The new APO version is better, but not by much.
 
Last edited:
The Apo-Telyt-M is the one, but the 135/2.8 is also excellent and the FSU 135/4 is astonishing good and costs next to nothing. I use a late 135/2.8 (one of the last made).

By f/5.6 (or maybe f/8) there's no difference worth worrying about between the three, even on a tripod. Without a tripod, steadiness matters more than theoretical sharpness.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
The Chrome Nikkor 13.5cm f3.5 is a heavy lens. If you go in that direction, you will want the later model chrome/black, I think the serial number >267xxx. The Black Canon 135/3.5 is much lighter than the earlier lens.

At F5.6 and F8, all of these lenses are sharp and difficult to distinguish. But you are after the center 1/3rd of the image, basically making them act as a 400mm lens. As Roger stated, you should be using a tripod and faster shutter speed. Instead of the "shutter speed to match the focal length" rule, you need to triple it at least. That means 1/500th is the slowest speed that you should consider.

I have a Komura 200/4.5 in LTM that is small and light, but bought it for a curiousity. I would be using a Nikon F2 with 300/4.5 for these types of pictures.
 
Sorry to be such a prick and bring up SLR lenses but the canon 135mm f2L and the new zeiss ZA 135mm f1.8 have to be the 2 sharpest 135mm lenses IMO.
 
TE example

TE example

Here is a typical Tele Elmar shot from me:

399961650_kjYnM-XL-1.jpg


And cropped:

517637803_7nRHc-L.jpg


The lens outperforms the scanner (5000 ED).

Cheers,

Roland.
 
fdigital said:
Sorry to be such a prick and bring up SLR lenses but the canon 135mm f2L and the new zeiss ZA 135mm f1.8 have to be the 2 sharpest 135mm lenses IMO.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they are the newest? A general rule of thumb in optical design is that a slower aperture lens will generally outperform a highspeed design. There is a lot, lot more energy traveling through a highspeed lens, which is far more difficult to control.
 
Why? Because he's correct. And they are faster. Huge too. The photos I've seen from the Canon wide open will cut you. Stopped down to 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 and it's no contest. The lens is huge. That's the problem.
 
The main consideration for me with a 135 on an M is that I won't need to carry an SLR body with a 180/2.8. I rarely use it as a 135. I crop and use it as a 180. I pretty much have the frame lines engraved in my brain. I really think that a goggled 180/4 would find a ready market.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The main consideration for me with a 135 on an M is that I won't need to carry an SLR body with a 180/2.8. I rarely use it as a 135. I crop and use it as a 180. I pretty much have the frame lines engraved in my brain. I really think that a goggled 180/4 would find a ready market.
Click to expand...


That was my intention. I plan to crop the center, so I need it to be sharp.

After Brian noted the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar, I decided to see what other lenses exist as well. There were a LOT of companies that made 135mm lenses for the LSM.

The following is a list of what I've seen around, but I'm not sure if any are better than the Nikkor or Canon:

  • Chiyoda Kogaku Tele-Rokkor f/4
  • Tanaka Kogaku Tele-Tanar f/3.5
  • Telesar f/3.5
  • Jupiter 11 f/4
  • Tokyo Kogaku Topcor f/3.5
  • Komura f/3.5
  • Sun Telephoto f/3.8
  • Schacht Travenar f/3.5
  • Steinheil Culminar f/3.5
I appreciate everyone's answers and pictures thus far! :D
 
> Tanaka Kogaku Tele-Tanar f/3.5

Had one. Was "decent". Not as good as the Nikkor or Canon.

> Jupiter 11 f/4
Waiting on results to come back. FSU lenses vary from sample-to-sample, but mine looked VERY SHARP through a loupe.

> Komura f/3.5
Aperture blades "self-destructed" on mine.

> Schacht Travenar f/3.5
"decent" performer, not as good as Canon or Nikkor. BUT: I need to retest mine, took it apart and cleaned all the surfaces. Really Pretty!
 
I'm not going to bore everybody with my math but a 180/2.8 with goggles should work at least as well as the 85/1.5 optics of yore, and they sported no goggles. How about it, Voigtlander?
 
Al Kaplan said:
I'm not going to bore everybody with my math but a 180/2.8 with goggles should work at least as well as the 85/1.5 optics of yore, and they sported no goggles. How about it, Voigtlander?
Click to expand...

ZI/ZM ... a new Olympia Sonnar. Go for it, Zeiss !
 
sharpest 135: Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 (Rollei QBM), followed by the Tele-Tessar 135/4 (same mount). Close: Canon 135/2.5 (MB2-RF-lens). Quite good: Canon 135/3.5 (RF)
 
Question for those more knowledgeable than me. How do you tell a 2nd gen 135 2.8 from the 1st gen? I have one that says made in Canada, but thought all the 2.8 135mm were made in Canada.
Glenn

Edit: nevermind, I found the answer on Stephen's site.
 
Last edited:
venchka said:
Why? Because he's correct. And they are faster. Huge too. The photos I've seen from the Canon wide open will cut you. Stopped down to 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 and it's no contest. The lens is huge. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet money on that. The Canon is good, but I highly doubt that is built to the same mechanical tolerances, as a lens from Leica. Mechanical construction is half the game in making a high performance lens. And again, it would take a minor miracle for Canon to build a f2 lens that outperforms or matches one of the sharpest lenses Leica has ever made for the M line up. Physics are not on Canon's side.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom