Using the slower 135mm lenses w/o magnifiers

[F456]

I know it's easier to focus a 135mm on an SLR than on an M camera; at least it seems that way to me.

I did like the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M when I had one as the magnifiers cut out the periphery, leaving it easier to focus on the matter that would be recorded on film. But being bulky it got used mainly on a tripod, whereas now I want to be on the move.

If you use a slower 135mm on Leicas -- the Tele-Elmar f/4 or the Apo-Telyt f/3.4, what's your success rate? I am thinking of across the street shots or compressing landscapes; not so much for close headshots. I think I'd stick to a Nikon F-series for that.

Truth be known, I don't really need 135mm but I like the effect the focal length gives - because it's a bit unusual these days.

Is the framing and focusing problem as difficult as people say? - I've never had trouble with 90mm or even with the tiddly 75mm lines in the distant past. And I do have a 0.85 finder to help, which might not be enough to counter the longer length of the 135mm.

Thank you,
Tom

 

[peterm1]

I do not have much trouble with long shots using a 135mm as these tend to occur when I want to stop down at least a bit. Of course shooting further away gives deeper depth of field than shooting close up in any event. Shooting stopped down gives deeper depth of field also. So a shot taken of a more or less distant subject is more likely to be acceptably sharp even if focusing is a bit off. Unlike portrait shots which are usually shot closer and usually shot wide open both of which obviously reduce DOF and is more demanding in terms of accurate focusing. I don't use a 135mm that often on a rangefinder but am happy to do so when I need to. Also I generally use an old black and chrome Canon 135mm f3.5 in LTM with an M adapter. This has a very long focus throw which also helps, at least when shooting static subjects.

Neither do I find framing much of an issue. But then again these days I shoot with an M8 and can crop in post processing which gives me some latitude in this department as long as I do not miss by too much. I grant you though that the small size of some viewfinders does not help. One option is to buy an accessory turret finder on eBay. Unlike the Leica finders which do not magnify the image the turret finders tend to do so and hence help solve your problem with seeing the subject clearly.

The best German ones are pricey but the Russian turret finders like the one linked below are a bit basic but work OK. https://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIVERSAL-...492774?hash=item3d4ceb47a6:g:J7wAAOSwrklVdzTm

 

[Rob-F]

It depends partly on which Leica you use. The M3 has a magnification around 0.91 or 0.92, which gives more focusing accuracy than, say, an M6 with 0.72 magnification. The view also appears larger with the M3, making framing somewhat less challenging. It also depends on the size of the circle of confusion you want to use as the DOF standard. Erwin Puts has a chart in the Leica Lens Compendium, p. 228, that shows that the M3 is adequate for the 0.03 circle of confusion, but not quite good enough for 0.02. For hand-held shooting, I think the 0.02 standard is probably too stringent anyhow, as camera shake will probably be the limiting factor. Shooting wide at a high shutter speed will probably get you as sharp a print as stopping down and settling for a slower speed.

And yes, you really do need a 135mm if you like the effect it gives.

You could pick up a Visoflex and a focusing mount, and use the Tele-Elmar lens head.

 

[a.noctilux]

Tom,

With 0.85 finder that's the best way to use 135 lens on M.
When I used my MP 0.85, I mainly used Tele-Elmarit-M 2.8/135 for RF and distant subject.
Framing is difficult with RF and Tele-Elmar 4/135.
So I use Tele-Elmar head on Visoflex III, but it's heavier than 2.8/135 in this case.

As Peter said, the best when you don't need 135mm as main lens is Canon LTM 3.5/135 that is nice for an old design.

 

[Richard G]

Even on M9 it the Tele Elmar works well. But I love to use the SHOOC external finder for framing.

 

[shimokita]

I have the Canon 135mm f/3.5 in LTM that I use on a Leica IIIf. According to the user manual the Rangefinder Magnification is 1.5x. For composition I am using the Leitz 13.5cm external finder (SHOOC). I am normally shooting around f/5.6 and don't have any major problems...

 

[F456]

Thank you and what I'll do for now.

Thank you and what I'll do for now.

Thank you, everyone. I have an old Nikkor 135/3.5 which cost me £80 and it gets me great pictures of dogs amidst a sufficiently blurred grass fore & background; I'll use that on my F2 for now but will almost certainly be lured to a Leitz solution again before long.

All points very useful as always!

By the way, I believe that while the Tele-Elmar is a telephoto lens the Elmarit is a long focus lens rather than a tele; hence it isn't actually called a Tele-Elmarit (unlike the fat and thin 90mm versions). Correct me if I'm wrong, of course!

Tom

 

[a.noctilux]

Sorry, you are right.
In 135mm Leica M there is no Tele-Elmarit (not in the naming, even if the optical formula IS "tele": it's almost same length as Tele-Elmar 4/135).

 

[presspass]

I've even used the 3.4 and the 4.0 with cameras that supposedly cannot focus a 135 accurately - Bessa R2 and Zeiss Ikon. Both with the Leica 135 finder which is excellent. The finder is fairly inexpensive as Leica finders go; they're regularly listed around $100 in the U.S. I typically use that finder even with a .85 M6 ttl.

 

[Godfrey]

I know it's easier to focus a 135mm on an SLR than on an M camera; at least it seems that way to me.

I did like the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M when I had one as the magnifiers cut out the periphery, leaving it easier to focus on the matter that would be recorded on film. But being bulky it got used mainly on a tripod, whereas now I want to be on the move.

If you use a slower 135mm on Leicas -- the Tele-Elmar f/4 or the Apo-Telyt f/3.4, what's your success rate? I am thinking of across the street shots or compressing landscapes; not so much for close headshots. I think I'd stick to a Nikon F-series for that.

Truth be known, I don't really need 135mm but I like the effect the focal length gives - because it's a bit unusual these days.

Is the framing and focusing problem as difficult as people say? - I've never had trouble with 90mm or even with the tiddly 75mm lines in the distant past. And I do have a 0.85 finder to help, which might not be enough to counter the longer length of the 135mm.

Thank you,
Tom

I have a lovely 1960 Hektor 135 mm f/4.5 that I use on the Leica M-D and SL bodies now and then. It's actually easy to focus on either, on the M-D it requires that the rangefinder cam is accurately calibrated. It's made some beautiful photographs for me, this one with the M9:



G

 

[leicapixie]

I use a 135mm Tele-Elmar occasionally.
I prefer the world at 50mm.
Once had assignment to cover a Choir in concert.
I was given a position approx. 65 feet away.
I chose a Nikon-F with 135mm f3.5 lens(definitely not stellar)!
I could be assured of hitting good focus.
The depth of field at f4 or f5.6 to narrow..
Where the light is abundant, Tele-Elmar is spectacular.
It is an Apochromat but not said!
At f4 simply amazing.

 

[a.noctilux]

I use a 135mm Tele-Elmar occasionally.
...

Where the light is abundant, Tele-Elmar is spectacular.
It is an Apochromat but not said!
At f4 simply amazing.

Quite what I've observed with Tele-Elmar4/135.
It's really spectacular in sharpness and color rendering.

I think also that it's "APO" without the naming.
Comparing the MTF of Apo-Telyt-M 3.4/135 and Tele-Elmar 4/135, there is only small difference at full open then as good at f/5.6 !

 

[BillBingham2]

I've used 135 on RF several times, worked OK, but wasn't smooth, not that I can say what smooth is specifically. I added an SLR for 85 and above. I found it works much better for me.

B2 (;->

 

[icebear]

Use a simple 1.4x diopter screw in magnifier, it makes composition and focus easier and more precise when you can actually see something instead of guessing.😉
The 4/135 is not my flavorite lens on an M body but the results are excellent IQ.

 

[splitimageview]

For composition I am using the Leitz 13.5cm external finder (SHOOC).

Yes, I recently picked up one of these for a rather small price.

Life size view, it really makes all the difference. Not only is the view large, much larger than the typical 0.72x of most M bodies, there is plenty of area visible outside the frames, so you can anticipate subjects moving into the frame.

These work with any M or screw mount body of course.

 

[F456]

I've used 135 on RF several times, worked OK, but wasn't smooth, not that I can say what smooth is specifically. I added an SLR for 85 and above. I found it works much better for me.

B2 (;->

Bill, that's my conclusion too. But every so often when I read how good the Tele-Elmar (and Apo-Telyt) IQ is I get tempted! Then I remember how good Nikon SLR viewfinders are for longer lenses...

Tom

 

[F456]

Tom,

With 0.85 finder that's the best way to use 135 lens on M.
When I used my MP 0.85, I mainly used Tele-Elmarit-M 2.8/135 for RF and distant subject.
Framing is difficult with RF and Tele-Elmar 4/135.
So I use Tele-Elmar head on Visoflex III, but it's heavier than 2.8/135 in this case.

As Peter said, the best when you don't need 135mm as main lens is Canon LTM 3.5/135 that is nice for an old design.

I used Elmarit 2.8/135mm too, mainly for close-up studies - leaves, stone walls, those sort of studenty-type things that I tried out (in my 50s!). I did like that lens but it was different from the typical mobile Leica work with a 35mm or 50mm. The magnifiers did help a lot, though apparently they get jarred out of alignment quite easily, to add to the problems.

 

[F456]

Even on M9 it the Tele Elmar works well. But I love to use the SHOOC external finder for framing.

Richard, that's handy to know. When I had an M8 I had trouble focusing my 90mm but that turned out in the end to be to do with using a film-era lens on digital. Perhaps Tele-Elmar 4/135mm is a more digital-sympathetic design.

 

[splitimageview]

Perhaps that particular 90 was not calibrated with that M8 for accurate focusing, not an uncommon event with Leica digital. Any film era lens can work fine on digital, I’ve sent many lenses and bodies to DAG to do just that.

 

[leicapixie]

All tele lenses, 90mm, 135mm need adjustment for digital.
I was present when the finest PJ in South Africa, was testing a used 135mm f2.8 goggles.
Hand shooting portrait in store of Owner.
Struan used Tri-X (long ago) and probably Kodak D-76 1;3.
A few days later, saw 11x14 prints on glossy paper.
If one does not get sharp with this lens, you won't get sharp anywhere!

I have never used magnifier, scared of poking my eye!

Yes SLR is easier to SEE and Focus, but RF is fun.