Elmarit 135/2.8

[dennersten]

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?

[jc_braconi]

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.

[volker_hack]

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.

[dennersten]

Originally Posted by volker_hack

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?

[dennersten]

Originally Posted by jc_braconi

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.

[jc_braconi]

Originally Posted by dennersten

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

http://www.summilux.net/m_system/obj...t135-I-vue.jpghttp://www.summilux.net/m_system/obj...135-II-vue.jpg

you can post a pick of it

Originally Posted by dennersten

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.

[DannyBell]

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.

[budrichard]

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

[lars_bergquist]

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

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

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.

[ismon]

Quick check to see old vs. new optics: First design has a concave rear element, the second version has a convex rear element.

[lars_bergquist]

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

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

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.

[Xmas]

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

[mawu]

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...

[doubice]

Originally Posted by mawu

......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

[luigi bertolotti]

[quote=mawu;2011658]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.

[Michael Geschlecht]

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

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by Michael Geschlecht

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)