135mm or 90mm

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys

I am in the market for a long Leica lens and thinking either the 90mm APO or the 135mm also APO to use on both the MM and M.............I know that the 90 is f2 and the 135 is f3.5 but I am thinking that maybe the 135 with go better with my other 2 lens the 21mm lux and the 50mm Noctilux......I also have the 50mm f2.8 Elmar that I bought especially for the MM.

Any views tips likes dislikes are as always welcome

Thanks

 

Neil

[wda]

Guy, I have both focal lengths and note that the 90 sees more use than the 135. The latter is rather specialist and tends to be left at home unless there is a special reason to take it. Examine your needs and that should inform your choice.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

135 is quite difficult to focus and (imo) difficult to frame.

[MarkP]

I have the 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar and the 3.4/135 APO-Telyt. Both are fantastic and amongst the best performing of Leica-M lenses.

 

90mm is far more versatile and useful for me. It gets far more use than the 135 but it depends what you're photographing.

[La Morte]

90mm IMO, I use mine a lot.

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

I have the 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar and the 3.4/135 APO-Telyt. Both are fantastic and amongst the best performing of Leica-M lenses.

 

90mm is far more versatile and useful for me. It gets far more use than the 135 but it depends what you're photographing.

 

Ditto.

 

I tend to prefer 3 lens kits and the rare few times i used the 135 was in the constellation of 15mm-35mm-75mm and 135mm

 

I sold the 135 to get some other lenses with a shorter focal length

 

Get the 90AA for your M240 and the 90/2.8 Elmarit for your MM (even the 90/f2 pre-ASPH or 90/2 v2 are great choices for the MM, of course they do very well on the M240 as well)

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep the 135 in my bag all the time. It is a bit specialist lens. However, it is a crutiaal part of my 24elmar-35fle-75cron-135apo kit. I use 1.35x magnifier and focusing isn't an issue for me.

[jbl]

90 all the way IMO. The 135 is a lot harder to use and and my 90s get a lot more use relative to it. I'm glad I have it, but I'd recommend getting a 90 first.

[sanyasi]

I own a 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, and 135mm. If I only could have two, I would pick the 50 and the 90. In large part, it comes down to wanting to avoid changing lenses. On occasion the 135 is great, but if I am out walking around, that usually means that I put the 135 on, take the shot, and then take it off because most of the other compositions don't require it. I can use my feet to address many compositional issues. For that reason, the 135 generally gets used when I know I will be shooting a lot of long photos, like at a concert or club when I have a fixed location.

 

I usually carry to Leicas in my kit. The 90 is always on one of them. Then it becomes a question of whether I put the 21, 35 or 50 on the other.

 

Some people say the 135 is hard to focus. I haven't had that trouble and I wear glasses. The 3.4 aperture can be a disadvantage in low light settings.

 

The 90mm summicron is an excellent lens.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[Ecar]

90mm is far more versatile and useful for me. It gets far more use than the 135 but it depends what you're photographing.

 

+1

[k-hawinkler]

I have quite a few older 90 and 135 mm Leica M lenses. But I don't own the latest APO versions.

Here http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/165871-bandelier.html are some pictures taken with those lenses on a Leica M9 and Nikon D3.

I prefer the older lenses as their lens heads can also be used with a short focusing stack on other cameras.

 

The Tele-Elmar 135/4 is one of my favorite lenses for landscape shots around here, a mountainous desert area with wide open vistas and 75 mile views.

Here http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1778285-post60.html are some landscape shots that benefit from 135 mm focal length.

But that lens also can do portrait shots http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/199288-dr-melvin-l-prueitt.html, here on the Nikon D300 that has an APS-C sensor, resulting in a 200 mm equivalent field of view of 135 film.

 

Of course, 90 mm focal length has its own advantages. You already got a few recommendations for that so I will stop now.

 

In short, having seen some of your landscape shots, i think you would make excellent use of both focal lengths in question.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I tend to use my 135mm APO more than my 90. I'm old fasioned and like doubling my focal lengths so the 90 is a bit short when a 50mm is my main lens.

 

The 135 is a more tricy lens to focus though and I revert to live view closer in.

 

Gordon

[jaques]

Get yourself the fat tele elmar 90 and the 135 tele elmarit- enjoy the best of both worlds! I don't find the 135 so hard to focus and it is a very useful lens for some applications.

[platypus]

Of course the APO90 is not really that "long". Back when I had R series Leicas I used the 80 Summilux constantly as a standard lens for weddings, portraits at weddings and just plain portrait work:

no lens swopping, a wonderful workpony, a gem, my favourite lens for work! Upon moving on to digital and buying an M9 I naturally replaced the 80 with the APO90 and found that there was really

no appreciable difference as both enjoy the same degree of versatility. But it's not a "long" lens only a bit "longer" than?...........if a "long" lens is what you want better choose the 135.

[efreed2754]

Neil, what are you thinking? Believe major points have been made. That said...

 

Believe you will find use of both. If one 90 is logical choice. Been using 90 Elmarit last version and very pleased. Have no trouble cropping while keeping good detail. Also lighter than APO.

 

My 135 is Tele-Elmar 4.0. Bought for $100 as stop gap 15 years ago and didn't see need to update. Never any problem focusing, so try it out.

 

So if money an issue can go used and have both. With cropping 90 good for 90 to 150 or so and 135 good for 135 to 200 or so.

 

Oh, also use 75 a lot and find slightly wider is better as can crop longer but not shorter.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

A 90mm lens & a 135mm lens have a lot in common. In a variety situations they are more or less interchangable. Altho in some circumstances they are somewhat different.

 

A 90mm lens gives you equivalent hand held stability @ 1 shutter speed slower than using the same aperture with a 135mm lens.

 

A 90mm lens tends to eliminate unwanted foreground while a 135mm lens tends to reach further back & isolate.

 

A 90 mm lens gives a more or less normal perspective while a 135mm lens shows the beginning of image compression.

 

With a 90mm lens: Depth of field @ a given aperture is only slightly less than it is with a normal lens.

 

With a 135mm lens @ the same aperture as with the 90mm lens above there is a noticable reduction of depth of field.

 

This reduced depth of field coupled with the effective loss of 1 shutter speed of hand-hold-ability is sometimes perceived as "difficulty in focussing".

 

A small, solid, table tripod fitted with soft, non-marking slippers used with a large ball head & a cable release can be useful with either lens.

 

Against my chest this combination gives me +2 stops of additional stability.

 

Against a wall (soft, non-marking slippers) - inside of - or on the underside of - a door frame - or against a rock or a tree - or on a car with the engine turned off - or even on a table: It gives me all of the stops of stability that I need.

 

There is a difference between a scene photographed @ F2 @ 1/30 and the same scene photographed @ F11 @ 1 sec. The above table top tripod, etc is no more difficult to carry than adding an additional lens.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited August 22, 2014 by Michael Geschlecht

[CheshireCat]

A 90mm lens gives you equivalent hand held stability @ 1 shutter speed slower than using the same aperture with a 135mm lens.

 

It is about half a stop. A one stop improvement would be 90 vs 180.

 

With a 90mm lens: Depth of field @ a given aperture is only slightly less than it is with a normal lens.

 

Not by my experience. A typical 90 has much less DoF and requires more critical focus than a 50 at the same aperture, especially at portrait distance (about one third the DoF of a 50).

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

It is about half a stop. A one stop improvement would be 90 vs 180.

 

 

 

Not by my experience. A typical 90 has much less DoF and requires more critical focus than a 50 at the same aperture, especially at portrait distance (about one third the DoF of a 50).

Not if you are using a monopod or at night

[CheshireCat]

Not if you are using a monopod or at night

 

What difference does it make ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

What difference does it make ?

None

Was replying to a different thread...............as for 90 or 135 I have just bought the 90mm APO thanks for the feedback