Looking for a Tele lens but need your advice

[Numbers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

Im contemplating a tele, perhaps a 135mm m lens for my M240. My current setup is 21mm 3.4, 35mm 1.4 , 75mm 2.0.

 

I have been searching the site and other articles and clearly this focal length is not very popular. It seems it is at bit more difficult to work with in the rangefinder - is this correct?

 

The primary purpose for this lens Im interested in, is for landscape and architectural details. So good sharpness, contrast, micro detail etc matters and should be good. On the other hand, I am also aware, it will not be the lens I use the most in my kit, however I have missed it several times. I am looking for a long term keeper, as I dont particularly enjoy buying and selling gear - which also means Im ready to pay for the "right" lens.

 

So what should I look for? Is it worth spending the money on the M-3,4/135mm APO? I see that is possible to find a for Elmarit 2.8 135 M for a lot less money. how do these lenses compare?

OR should i look for something from the R-system, either fixed or zoom to use with the EWF?

 

I hope someone who has good experience with these lenses will chip in.

 

thank you very much for your help

Edited December 13, 2013 by Numbers

[wda]

Christian, they are generations apart in production and handling. If the latter is a serious option, I would replace it with the rather later 135mm Tele-Elmar which I use successfully on my M9. That is well made and enjoyed a very long production run until replaced by the Apo version. While I have handled that lens, I would say it is only marginally superior optically. Others who are regular users will have a fuller verdict on the Apo lens.

 

Whichever lens you choose, it will be much easier on the M 240 with Live-View.

Edited December 13, 2013 by wda

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rirakuma]

If you're doing landscaping or architecture I would suggest getting the 80-200 vario elmar. It's a solid performer and having a zoom makes it much more versatile than a prime. The main drawback is you'd have to use an EVF or live view and it's larger than M lenses.

[MarkP]

If you're doing landscaping or architecture I would suggest getting the 80-200 vario elmar. It's a solid performer and having a zoom makes it much more versatile than a prime. The main drawback is you'd have to use an EVF or live view and it's larger than M lenses.

 

4.0/80-200 Vario-Elmar-R 1020g 165mm

3.4/135 APO-Telyt-M 450gm 105mm

 

I have the APO-Telyt and it's a stellar performer - considered one of the great M lenses.

 

You already have an excellent set of top of the range Leica lenses so why not just get the 135 APO-Telyt? If it's really not going to be used much then the previous 4.0/135 is apparently only just behind it in performance and much cheaper

Edited December 13, 2013 by MarkP

[xalo]

I'd vouch for the 4/135 Tele-Elmar, especially if it's for more occasional use. Performance is superb, the older built can be had for a steal and in addition, you can use it's head with adaptor rings for macro on your M or almost any SLR.

Alexander

[pop]

I, too, support the 135mm Tele-Elmar. I am disappointed with my copy of the 135mm Elmarit which I find difficult to focus despite the goggles and which tends to some quite noticeable CA.

[Guest redge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

Im contemplating a tele, perhaps a 135mm m lens for my M240...

 

I have been searching the site and other articles and clearly this focal length is not very popular. It seems it is at bit more difficult to work with in the rangefinder - is this correct?

 

I don't have any trouble using the M240's optical viewfinder to focus a 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar (version I). That said, yesterday I purchased the Olympus VF-2 electronic viewfinder. Having spent the last hour trying it out it with this lens, I can see that it may be quite useful, in conjunction with live view, both when composing and to fine tune focus. One of the attractive features of the electronic viewfinder, especially for landscapes and architecture from a tripod, is that the viewing angle can be adjusted.

 

Someone above mentioned that the head of version I of this lens can be detached for macro work. On that subject, see the following thread and link to earlier posts by Mr. Laidlaw: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/312042-m-240-135mm-tele-elmar-f.html

Edited December 13, 2013 by redge

[Numbers]

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your replies.

They have all ben very helpful. Also, thank you for pointing me to the Tele-Elmar. It seems very reasonable in price.

SInce it has had such a long run, is one more desirable than the other in terms of optical or built quality? I see that the older they are, the lower the price is.

 

thank you, to all of you!

[lct]

My Elmarit 135/2.8 works fine on the M240. Built like a tank. No focussing problems at all. Bit of softness and CA indeed at full aperture but otherwise it is my favorite "slow" 135 with an old Elmar 135/4 and its sister Elmarit 135/2.8 for Leica R. A bargain second hand IMO. I've never compared it to the 135/3.4 apo though.

[Guest redge]

...thank you for pointing me to the Tele-Elmar. It seems very reasonable in price.

SInce it has had such a long run, is one more desirable than the other in terms of optical or built quality? I see that the older they are, the lower the price is.

 

If you haven't seen it already, you may find this article and the accompanying photographs, by a guest reviewer on Steve Huff's site, helpful: A Lens Reborn? – The Leica 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

I'm happy with my Tele-Elmar, which dates to the first year of production, but I have not tried a more recently manufactured copy. I think that I'd focus on the condition of the lens rather than on when it was made. Also, if you want to use it for macro photography, my understanding is that the version II head is not detachable.

[Numbers]

If you haven't seen it already, you may find this article and the accompanying photographs, by a guest reviewer on Steve Huff's site, helpful: A Lens Reborn? – The Leica 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

I'm happy with my Tele-Elmar, which dates to the first year of production, but I have not tried a more recently manufactured copy. I think that I'd focus on the condition of the lens rather than on when it was made. Also, if you want to use it for macro photography, my understanding is that the version II head is not detachable.

 

Thank you so much, Redge. Very intersting reading. The price of a second version seems more than double of the first., hence the question. But if the difference is better coating, im not sure that is worth it. Also thank you for your post regarding the use of the lens with the rangefinder. It made stick to an M lens, since I still prefer it over the EWF.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Numbers

[Guest redge]

Also thank you for your post regarding the use of the lens with the rangefinder. It made stick to an M lens, since I still prefer it over the EWF.

 

I don't have a problem focusing it on the M240, but I've used this lens on my previous camera (an M3) for ten years and am pretty used to it. As the article suggests, if you find focusing finicky, and you don't want to go the live view and/or electronic viewfinder route, you can always get a Leica viewfinder magnifier. The magnifiers are expensive, but the lens is not

Edited December 13, 2013 by redge

[Numbers]

I don't have a problem focusing it on the M240, but I've used this lens on my previous camera (an M3) for ten years and am pretty used to it. As the article suggests, if you find focusing finicky, and you don't want to go the live view and/or electronic viewfinder route, you can always get a Leica viewfinder magnifier. The magnifiers are expensive, but the lens is not

 

 

 

It is not like I dont like the EWF, in some respects it is an extremely useful supplement to the rangefinder. Particularly for my needs. And I can only imagine, very useful for composition in this focal length. However, I enjoy using the rangefinder a lot more and the more I think about, it I wouldnt want to be totally dependant on the EWF.

[bideford]

Cheap - 1960-65 Elmar f/4 (UK approx £100)

Much better 1965-1990 Tele-Elmat f/4 (UK approx £350) - later version same optics different body and more expensive.

 

James

[wda]

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your replies.

They have all ben very helpful. Also, thank you for pointing me to the Tele-Elmar. It seems very reasonable in price.

SInce it has had such a long run, is one more desirable than the other in terms of optical or built quality? I see that the older they are, the lower the price is.

 

thank you, to all of you!

Optically, they are identical. Older ones reflect greater use. I spent some time having tried two which I returned because their condition did not match their description. Eventually I found a mint specimen from mid-production which is excellent. In the interim, I used a mint 135mm Elmar which I kept for its more period rendering.

 

Those Tele-Elmars with detachable lens heads can appear with mis-matched bodies; so be aware of that fact.

 

You would not be disappointed with the TE performance. I could not justify the cost of a new Telyt version for the little use I give that focal length.

[Jeff S]

This earlier post is a good summary of the APO Telyt, with history and issues to consider.

 

Jeff

[Printmaker]

I have a 135 Elmarit that I call Big Ugly. I use it about a dozen times a year. The rest of the time it sits on a shelf. It is not that it is not sharp as it is a reasonable performer, it is heavy and awkward to use. It is great on an M8 though, where it gives you a 180 FOV.

 

I'd go with a Tele Elmar or APO Telyt if money is not a consideration for an occasional lens.

[Numbers]

Optically, they are identical. Older ones reflect greater use. I spent some time having tried two which I returned because their condition did not match their description. Eventually I found a mint specimen from mid-production which is excellent. In the interim, I used a mint 135mm Elmar which I kept for its more period rendering.

 

Those Tele-Elmars with detachable lens heads can appear with mis-matched bodies; so be aware of that fact.

 

You would not be disappointed with the TE performance. I could not justify the cost of a new Telyt version for the little use I give that focal length.

 

 

 

Thank you, David. Very good points to keep in mind in the hunt! I suppose the old advice about buying the seller is important, since it would probably have shifted owners several times.

[efreed2754]

Have used Tele Elmar since around 2000. Bot as stop gap til getting the APO. While I know APO has some advantages, have been very pleased with TE and haven't given APO serious thought.

 

Used 135 on M6, M7, M9 and now M (240). Have second model of first version (smooth focus ring). Latest version looks nice but much more pricey. Never had any focusing issues and EVF is back-up. Like having an M lens thats no where near as heavy as an R lens.

 

If money no object go for APO, if funds are a concern then hard to beat the value of the TE.

 

Ed

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[darylgo]

Testing two Tele-Elmars, one with removable head and one without (later model), the lenses were indistinguishable when looking at images from both. The lenses imaged identically, a somewhat unusual circumstance to find such close performance. The lens formula is the same on both and improved coatings and assembly did not show in the images. The earlier models with removable head uses 39mm filters and the newer ones use 46mm filters.