What's your opinion on the Elmar 135mm f4?

[rulnacco]

These days, if 135mm is your thing, you can get the newer Tele-Elmar for around $250 on Ebay..

Yep, that's a sweet lens--I really like mine. But at the same time, it doesn't have the cool & funky factor of the original Elmar--or the built-in tripod mount, quite handy if you need it. The Tele-Elmar is a perfectly functional and extremely capable but somewhat drab-looking piece of kit, while the Elmar is this baroque precision instrument in glorious chromed brass and vulcanite. The Tele-Elmar is a 1976 Chevy Impala, the Elmar is a 1964 Mercury Park Lane in terms of looks.

I kind of hated to sell my original Elmar, even though I wasn't using it much. It was not only a nice lens, it had a bit of historical cachet, too: its prior owner was Douglas Webb, a veteran of the World War 2 Dambusters raid, who went on to become a photographer of some note--and considerable notoriety. Along with his life partner and muse, Pamela Green, who was even more notorious (and somewhat historical herself) for a particular scene in the 1960 film Peeping Tom. I hoped that maybe he had perhaps used the lens to take some risqué photos of Pamela on occasion. (You can look all that up if you're so inclined--it's an interesting story.)

That's part of the fun of Leica gear--it has a life independent of its current owner. I frequently wonder who used to own my various cameras (I have an M3 and M6) and lenses--all purchased second-hand--and what kind of photos they had taken before I met them. And I'm pretty sure my gear will go on living and shooting long after I'm dead and dust.

 

[santino]

Today‘s heavy snow fall prevented me from driving in the mountain region to buy that Elmar. Let’s see if it is going to wait for me another few days 😁
I don‘t really need it but I want it.

 

[hendriphile]

I have used the 135 Elmar with my M3, and I can affirm what Skahde says in his comments above verbatim. Focusing was very precise. When carried in the field, it wasn't discreet (vs. the thin 90 tele-elmarit which could fit in the ever-ready case with the cover closed), but optical performance was excellent (it was cutting edge when it was introduced), and I found that framing and focusing were not a problem with the M3's viewfinder. if it's in good shape I'd say go for it... it won't break the bank!

 

[skahde]

I would like to add that I used the Elmar as well as the Tele-Elmar on a M6 at the time and I found the small framelines to be more usable than not. With landscapes or anything a bit distant all is fine. But I never trusted the accuracy of the RF for portraits without remembering a single bad shot for that reason. Therefore, I also tried the head of the Tele-Elmar on a Visoflex III and it fits the OTZFO without additional extension but the combo felt awkward in comparison to a real SLR and I stopped using it in part because of the unflattering contrast as well as setup and handling.

Incidently I found another Tele-Elmar in the mail just yesterday as there was an offer I could not resist. It is one of the few lenses which went down in price after I sold my last setup about 17 years ago. If I remember the rumors correctly it was said to be practically APO. All I can say, it is sharp and contrasty with resolving-power to boot. If this is what you need, you will be hard pressed to find a better option at that price-point.

 

[Borge H]

I have also the old version of 4/135 Elmar with M-mount. They are inexpensive to buy, but not great lenses.

I would advice to look at Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 instead. It is a more modern lens with M-mount and much better optics. It is small and easy to bring with you in the pocket! It has higher contrast than the old Elmar 4/135 and you can also use them at 2.8 which gives you the option to have a stop shorter speed!

You can get the Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 at auctions at low cost! The old Elmar is still an interesting lens in som applocations like portraits, but a more useful lens is the modern Tele-Elmarit.

 

[santino]

I have also the old version of 4/135 Elmar with M-mount. They are inexpensive to buy, but not great lenses.

I would advice to look at Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 instead. It is a more modern lens with M-mount and much better optics. It is small and easy to bring with you in the pocket! It has higher contrast than the old Elmar 4/135 and you can also use them at 2.8 which gives you the option to have a stop shorter speed!

You can get the Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 at auctions at low cost! The old Elmar is still an interesting lens in som applocations like portraits, but a more useful lens is the modern Tele-Elmarit.

Thanks but I‘m not looking for a 90mm. I‘m perfectly happy with the 90mm M Rokkor I currently own.
The 135mm Tele-Elmar runs at about 250 Euros where I live and the 135mm Elmar is less than half the price of the Tele, so I’m leaning towards the Elmar since I probably won’t use it that often.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I’ve got one. I don’t use 135mm much, certainly on the rf, but I actually like it. Not expensive and you can make nice pictures with it. This from a long gone M9 I think.

 

[santino]

I’ve got one. I don’t use 135mm much, certainly on the rf, but I actually like it. Not expensive and you can make nice pictures with it. This from a long gone M9 I think.

View attachment 4830223

Your lens renders beautifully, just look at the hair and out of focus areas!

 

[DownUnder]

I briefly owned the lens you're asking about. I only took a few photos with it, I don't think I've printed any of them; the negatives did look quite good, though, in terms of tonality and sharpness under a loupe. Really, I can't add much to what Skahde said above, his summary was excellent and chimes much with my experience of it. The thing that caused me to sell it off was the ergonomics--the length of it, and the front-heaviness. I just didn't get on with it, and I wasn't using it much.

I have within the last year acquired a 135mm Tele-Elmar, and I find its size and balance to at least be acceptable and more tolerable (for my preferences) than the Elmar. I will second the advice to find the external viewfinder, even with the M3 (which I use my Tele-Elmar on). They're usually available rather cheaply for Leica gear, and I personally find it easier to compose with it.

Despite its drawbacks, the Elmar is still a great lens--like practically all Leica lenses. And the price really can't be beat. If you like using the 135 focal length on a Leica (or are considering using a 135mm on a bellows, a great combo), it's really a no-brainer--you'll get well over 90% of the performance of the most modern Leica Apo 135mm at a paltry fraction of the price. I know he gets a lot of mockery (much of it deserved), but if you haven't seen it, Ken Rockwell has a review of the lens on his site which is quite favorable, and has some images that demonstrate the superb quality you can get from it. (Make sure to click on the full-resolution Yosemite photo, it really is pretty stunning what the lens delivers.)

I was about to mention Ken Rockwell's review of the 135/4.0 Elmar but you beat me to it. Good one!!

I came to it as I also have been offered one, a late (mid-'60s) one, at a medium $$ price, and am tempted to buy it - but for use on a digital camera, not a film Leica M. Also a 90/4.0 Elmar but from the 1950s, but given its age and also its an LTM, I'm rather wary of this one.

He claimed it was the sharpest Leitz lens he owned or has used. Typical for KR. There is an image posted with his review that looks so sharp, I personally suspected it was 'artificially' enhanced...

He had it on an M9.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I was about to mention Ken Rockwell's review of the 135/4.0 Elmar but you beat me to it. Good one!!

I came to it as I also have been offered one, a late (mid-'60s) one, at a medium $$ price, and am tempted to buy it - but for use on a digital camera, not a film Leica M. Also a 90/4.0 Elmar but from the 1950s, but given its age and also its an LTM, I'm rather wary of this one.

He claimed it was the sharpest Leitz lens he owned or has used. Typical for KR. There is an image posted with his review that looks so sharp, I personally suspected it was 'artificially' enhanced...

He had it on an M9.

It’s plenty sharp and renders nicely on an M9. The M11 or S1r show a bit of softness at 100%, though it renders very nicely.

KR’s review is, perhaps, a bit over the top/of its time (whichever you prefer) and there are plenty of modern lenses that are sharper if that’s your thing.

My summary is something like, I only want 135mm occasionally on an M and the Elmer is fine for that, rendering nicely on both film and digital. However, if I want a sharp and high resolution 135 then I’ll use the Zeiss ZF apo-Sonnar on a different camera. Obviously, the Leica is much less expensive than the Zeiss, which is less expensive than the more modern lenses and iterations.

 

[DownUnder]

I may be hanged in effigy for writing this, but my intended goal will be to use the two (135 and 90) Elmar lenses on my Fuji XE2 and Xpro2. For the time being anyway. (My disclaimer, this.)

Am I now considered a heretic??

I will of course need an adapter. Fuji has a good one, but it's expen$ive. Many cheaper ones on Ebay. So another conundrum for me.

In my defense I will say I'm still considering a Leica CL I've had my eye on for some time, which would add to this purchase the cost of a Leica M to CL adapter.

To complicate all this even more, I'm told there are adapters available for Nikon AFD lenses on a Fuji X. I have four D lenses already that would do well on a Fuji - 85, 135, 180 and 300. Imagine the weight of my kit...

Decisions, decisions. It seems I can't win whichever way I turn.

 

[brusby]

Here's the 135mm f4 on M9 handheld a few months ago
L1007901 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

1950's Elmar 135mm f4 on SL2-S
L1020657 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[mdarnton]

I think that it's nearly impossible to make a bad slow 135mm lens. I use a late black Canon 135/3.5 (I see they're all the way up to $70!) and it's a wonderful lens. Basically you're taking a lens that's easy to design and then using only the best zone, the very center of what it projects. There's almost no way to mess up.

 

[DownUnder]

Many thanks, mdarnton. I will probably email the seller a last offer for the two Elmars today.

Your advice on something else would. be appreciated. To use the 90 and 135 Elmars on my Xpro2, will I need the (super expensive) Fuji adapter, or will an el cheapo adapter, China-made, as is sold on Ebay, do the trick for me>.

I suspect the latter will be fine, but a comment about this from someone who has used this 135, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Coldkennels]

Your advice on something else would. be appreciated. To use the 90 and 135 Elmars on my Xpro2, will I need the (super expensive) Fuji adapter, or will an el cheapo adapter, China-made, as is sold on Ebay, do the trick for me>.

I suspect the latter will be fine, but a comment about this from someone who has used this 135, would be greatly appreciated.

I've used the 135mm Hektor and the 90mm Elmar on an X-Pro 2. More or less any cheap adapter will do the job - you're only using focus peaking, after all. Don't worry too much about it.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Many thanks, mdarnton. I will probably email the seller a last offer for the two Elmars today.

Your advice on something else would. be appreciated. To use the 90 and 135 Elmars on my Xpro2, will I need the (super expensive) Fuji adapter, or will an el cheapo adapter, China-made, as is sold on Ebay, do the trick for me>.

I suspect the latter will be fine, but a comment about this from someone who has used this 135, would be greatly appreciated.

Any cheap adapter will be fine. And it’s a fine combination - we won’t criticise you for this choice. I suspect you’ll finish up using the evf mostly for the 135 though, with focus peaking or magnification.

 

[Richard G]

I have the Tele Elmar. Hardly used it. Ralph Gibson has a thing for the 135 in recent years. Totally agree with raydm6: the SHOOC finder makes the whole experience so much more pleasurable. Focus with RF, bracket focus a bit for crucial shots. The M9 screen is useless for checking focus. For many things you want the 135 for your position and subject are static and the SHOOC brightline finder comes into its own.

 

[Coldkennels]

Stupidly, I can't find a single photo taken with a 90mm or 135mm Elmar on an X-Pro at the mo, so this one from a late LTM Canon 135mm will have to do to illustrate a point:



This is straight out of the camera on an X-Pro 2, no post-processing at all, using a super cheap adapter I purchased from Amazon years ago. This is probably using the default "Provia" film simulation, I imagine. Sharpness isn't bad - focus peaking works, although it's not my favourite focusing system (I find I'm far more consistent with a Leica IIIf when I'm using 135mm than anything else - even SLRs) - but, as I said, it does mean you don't have to worry so much about adapter quality and lens or RF calibration. You might need to step the peaking up to "high" for these old lenses due to the comparatively low contrast compared to modern glass, though.

The one catch is that auto colour balance always seems off with old adapted lenses on my Fuji bodies, for some reason. Quite often they skew slightly purple, as shown here. I never have a problem with native lenses, but something about old LTM and M lenses confuses the hell out of the thing, so often I just shoot them in black and white and forget about it. Your milage may vary, I guess.

Also, assuming these are both the E39 versions of the Elmars, I highly recommend finding one of the 12575 hoods - with the original clip-in cap, if you can. They do wonders for flare resistance and - as long as you have the proper cap - they're reversible for storage and transport.





I often see them without the cap but it's definitely worth holding out for one with the cap. I guess you could 3D print a replacement, though.

 

[mdarnton]

I don't know about your camera, but I'm using all non-native lenses on my Nikon Z. I did buy the expensive adapter for Nikon lenses, but the only thing it offers is some pass-through of non-essential data for the later fancy Nikon lenses, and autofocus for the latest ones--lenses that have various chips in them--which I mostly don't own. Eventually, because of my particular mix I settled on an unconventional solution. The shorter flange focus of what I use is Leica M, so I bought a focusing Leica M adapter. That fits my M lenses and LTM ones with the normal LTM to M adapter ring. Then for my Nikon lenses, most of which are old manual focus where the fancy Nikon adapter doesn't add any value, I bought each one a cheap Nikon F to Leica M adapter, turning them into Leica M lenses. These adapters cost about $20 each, the cheapest that Ebay had.

What have I gained? When I go out I can grab whatever lenses I have for my bag and can stick them on my "Leica M model" Nikon Z without juggling adapters. All of them have also gained close-focus range thanks to the focusing Leica adapter.

I think it's a pretty slick solution.

On another point, I found focus peaking to be disappointingly useless for really critical focus, and I absolutely abhor what it does to my sense of composition to inject all of that trash into the view. I use a lot of fast lenses wide open, and it really does not work for that with any degree of accuracy because it doesn't just grab the focus point, it shows what it thinks is within depth of field . . . not good enough. Instead, on my Z I set the button directly under my thumb to give a 100% view and the one on the front under my ring finger to give 200%. This is really fast to access and great for critical focus, about as fast as using the RF on my Leicas. It took a day or two to get used to, but it's now completely transparent and reflexive.