dennersten Posted April 2, 2010 Share #1 Posted April 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, i bought the Elmarit 135 / 2.8 with googles some years back. I think i've only used it two or three times. I was really disappointed with it. I was flaring on 30 - 40% of all my pictures. I guess then it rested on the shelf three years until i decided to try it on a dog walk last week with my M9 Please have a look on the pictures below. They are taken within a minute from each other. I learned that the lens was flaring when the sun was close to the edge of the picture, or just outside the picture. I was amazed to learn that direct into the sun works fine as you can see, and of course with my back to sun. So my questions to you are: - Is this normal behaviour for this lens? I don't have the problem with any of my old lenses. - Why on earth can i shoot directly into the sun with such a good result, when it gets really horrible when i have the sun at the edge of picture? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/117134-elmarit-13528/?do=findComment&comment=1281822'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 Hi dennersten, Take a look here Elmarit 135/2.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted April 2, 2010 Share #2 Posted April 2, 2010 the problem begins with the curvature of the front lens the light enters near the tangent and next run like a ball in a flipper, going down trough the other lens especially the 4th element that is very thick. in direct light there is less lost of light and the results are as you illustrate very well with your pictures. some experts here will explain the phenomenon better than me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
volker_hack Posted April 3, 2010 Share #3 Posted April 3, 2010 I did a lot of work with the Elmarit 2,8/135 and I saw never (or nearly never) flare in its pictures. My Elmarit is the second optical version, the same that was sold for the R. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennersten Posted April 3, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted April 3, 2010 I did a lot of work with the Elmarit 2,8/135 and I saw never (or nearly never) flare in its pictures. My Elmarit is the second optical version, the same that was sold for the R. How do i know which version i have? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennersten Posted April 3, 2010 Author Share #5 Posted April 3, 2010 the problem begins with the curvature of the front lens the light enters near the tangent and next run like a ball in a flipper, going down trough the other lens especially the 4th element that is very thick.in direct light there is less lost of light and the results are as you illustrate very well with your pictures. some experts here will explain the phenomenon better than me. Aha. great thanks! So on which lenses is this a problem? I have older lenses which i don't se this problem on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted April 3, 2010 Share #6 Posted April 3, 2010 (edited) How do i know which version i have? collapsing hood mark I :2 pieces mark II 1 piece different focus ring mark I scalloped one mark II fine grooves different filter type mark I is serie VII mark II E55 you can post a pick of it Aha. great thanks! So on which lenses is this a problem? I have older lenses which i don't se this problem on. The age have nothing to do with flare it is the concept of lenses that can create problems at large aperture. Edited April 3, 2010 by jc_braconi Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Furst Posted April 26, 2010 Share #7 Posted April 26, 2010 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I have an early version of this lens and have not had trouble with flair using this lens on my M8. I have taken many pictires directly into bright reflections and it is flair free. I wonder if there is a difference in the camera platforms. I will have to take same pictures with my M4 and M7 and see if there is a difference. I really like this lens that I purchased in this forum "Buy and Sell" and it is always with me. Yes it is heavy and a big lens but the M viewfinder is bright and much easier to focus that any other M 135. I must add that one must be very careful with the focus as the depth of field is narrow. At the same time I will add that when the focus is right it is tack sharp and useful when you want the background out of focus. I also find the out of focus aspect very pleasing. Edited April 26, 2010 by George Furst addiution of a sentence Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted April 26, 2010 Share #8 Posted April 26, 2010 There is no difference in the M4/M7 camera platforms that would affect the use of the lens. I have one from an original M3 RF lens(MKII) set and have used it on M6 and M7 with no problems other than if using a Motor M, once its on with film in the camera, its on until you remove the film and Motor M.-Dick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted April 27, 2010 Share #9 Posted April 27, 2010 JC, there seems to be some doubt that the change in the (outer) mount coincides with the change in the optics, i.e. there could be cases of old optics in new style mounts. But it would be necessary to disassemble the lens to make sure. My own Elmarit, an early new-style mount lens, works beautifully and I have no problems at all focusing it. But it is a beast to carry. The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted April 27, 2010 Share #10 Posted April 27, 2010 My own Elmarit, an early new-style mount lens, works beautifully and I have no problems at all focusing it. I also have the 2nd version of this lens. It works very well and the results, at least at infinity, are comparable with the 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt. I was glad to get it 2nd-hand, almost as new, for a very nice and friendly price. Although not very often in use (I prefer reflex viewer for tele lens), will keep it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted April 27, 2010 Share #11 Posted April 27, 2010 Quick check to see old vs. new optics: First design has a concave rear element, the second version has a convex rear element. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted April 28, 2010 Share #12 Posted April 28, 2010 A question: Should not a current Apo-Telyt be just as easy to focus with a 1.4x finder magnifier, as the Elmarit is with its 1.4x goggles? Especially as it is 2/3 of a stop slower? The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted April 28, 2010 Share #13 Posted April 28, 2010 Should not a current Apo-Telyt be just as easy to focus with a 1.4x finder magnifier...I can't tell Lars, as i use the 1.35x magnifier with the Elmarit as well.With the Apo-Telyt, you have more room around the viewer, but you have to guess the 135mm frame. The window of the Elmarit google do restrict the frame view to about 60-65mm equivalent. Which i find more convenient at use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 28, 2010 Share #14 Posted April 28, 2010 Hi I have a series VII filter lens and it can flare or behave ok in bad contra jour situations similar to the OP. The only real work around is to use it on a visoflex. Noel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawu Posted March 20, 2012 Share #15 Posted March 20, 2012 jc_braconi explaind the following differences between the three series: collapsing hood mark I :2 pieces mark II 1 piece different focus ring mark I scalloped one mark II fine grooves different filter type mark I is serie VII mark II E55 And someone also wrote that the last lens element was modified from mark II on, but mark II and III seem to be identical? What was the reason to change this lens element and is the mark I series really inferior to the others? I am looking to buy one of these lenses... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted March 20, 2012 Share #16 Posted March 20, 2012 ......What was the reason to change this lens element and is the mark I series really inferior to the others?...... Version II used the same optical formula as the Elmarit-R made for the Leicaflex reflex cameras of that era. I guess Leitz did not see the reason to manufacture two optical formulas of the same lens at the same time. The second version is better. Best, Jan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 20, 2012 Share #17 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) jc_braconi explaind the following differences between the three series: collapsing hood mark I :2 pieces mark II 1 piece different focus ring mark I scalloped one mark II fine grooves different filter type mark I is serie VII mark II E55 I am looking to buy one of these lenses...[/quote] Really ? Well, my preferred Italian dealer (internationally reknown) has one for sale just now - imho at a right price, and is not a too old item Newoldcamera - Scheda prodotto For the lovers of magic numbers... it has even a palindromic s/n... I prefer the Tele Elmar, but the Tele Elmarit, if goggles are clean, is much more pleasant to use. Edited March 20, 2012 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted March 21, 2012 Share #18 Posted March 21, 2012 Hello Everybody, The optical designs for the 1st Elmarit 135 for the M camera in 1963 & the 1st Elmarit-R 135 for the Leicaflex in 1964 were slightly different. Both had concave surfaces on the back of the last element. Both are 5 element lenses. The M version had a flat surface on the rear of the 3d element cemented to a matching flat surface on the front of the 4th element while the Leicaflex version had a convex surface on the rear of the 3d element cemented to a matching concave surface on the front of the 4th. W/ both the M & Leicaflex lenses eventually changing to versions w/ a convex rear element that means there are @ least 3 versions. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 22, 2012 Share #19 Posted March 22, 2012 Hello Everybody, The optical designs for the 1st Elmarit 135 for the M camera in 1963 & the 1st Elmarit-R 135 for the Leicaflex in 1964 were slightly different. Both had concave surfaces on the back of the last element. Both are 5 element lenses. The M version had a flat surface on the rear of the 3d element cemented to a matching flat surface on the front of the 4th element while the Leicaflex version had a convex surface on the rear of the 3d element cemented to a matching concave surface on the front of the 4th. W/ both the M & Leicaflex lenses eventually changing to versions w/ a convex rear element that means there are @ least 3 versions. Best Regards, Michael Yes... also because the changing of the optical design in the Elmarit for M did NOT coincide with the modifications of the body (knurling - hood - filter thread) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.