135 Elmar M f/4 or Elmarit M f/2.8 - Considering buying, a few questions?

[wstotler]

Hi!

There seem to be a lot of 135 Elmar M f/4s (ungoggled) and/or Elmarit M f/2.8s (goggled) available at really reasonable prices in M mount and in good condition.

But I'm scratching my head a little, wondering what shots this lens is best suited to taking? (Bear with me. I know I'm coming at this one backward. Thanks.) E.g., the 15mm is for superwides, the 35mm is for wides, the 50mm is for mediums, the 90mm is for distance and/or portraits, etc. Of course lenses aren't really "task specific" like that, but some lend themselves to certain tasks better than others.

(1) What would the 135 be "best" for on the M8? E.g., in your opinion is it "best suited" for a particular type of work?
(2) Can someone describe the hands-on, day-to-day physical use of the f/4 vs. the f/2.8? (The actual use of either or both in the field--I've read about the drawing, size, etc., here and via Googling about them.)
(3) And, is either lens (f/4 or f/2.8) reliably focusable on the M8 without a Visoflex but with a 1.25x magnifier?

Thanks!
Will

[waileong]

135 is best for telephoto purposes. Esp if your subject is far away, just focus on infinity, or a little less if you can stop down to f8. Although there's no 135 frameline in the M8, you have an LCD and can reshoot if you missed the composition.

The reason the Elmar and Elmarit are avail is because the Tele-Elmar is most popular and best bang for the buck.

Neither lens needed a Visoflex to focus on the film M, so they can focus without Visoflex on M8 too.

[Clark1]

I have been able to shoot concerts with the 135mm f.4 on an M8 for some time. Need for the magnifier depends to the lighting conditions but it does bring some benefits when shooting at max aperture (f.4). Think Leica did not recommend the combination as it goes beyond their rangefinder base length accuracy requirements but I have found no problem where there is time to compose.. Takes a bit of concentration and getting used to though. Elmarit 2.8 with specs is even easier to use I hear but you cannot get it off/on the camera quickly if you are using an M8 hand grip. 135 give about same field of view as a 180mm on 35mm (179.55) ie. 3.591x magnification of image size over 50mm eqiuiv (1x).

[cam2000]

I recently bought a new apo telyt-m 135 F3.4..... just to use when you want more compression or reach out something in the distance. I use the central patch of the M8 for framing, I have made a mental viewing of what the 135 mm can see, so it works out great for me. The lens is light and the colors are superb..... I manage to use it very well without the 1.25 magnifier. What I read is the F4 is very similar where as the F2.8 is much bulkier to work with.

[wstotler]

Hi, all. Thanks for your feedback and observations. Based on price (and the additional weigh-in about the 2.8's size with goggles--I'd read this but it was good to hear again) and based on usage reported here, I decided to get the f/4 Elmar-M. Thanks for your help! Will

[jaapv]

Good choice. I use it mainly for two reasons:

Reason 1:





Reason 2 with Visoflex (nothing else)

[lars_bergquist]

The answer to 'what is it best for?' is 'what a 180mm lens on a 24x36 camera is best for'. And that is pretty self-evident.

I have both lenses, but the Elmarit is the one I use with the M8. It is true that you can check composition on the monitor, but the subject may not be there when you want to re-shoot! And while the Tele-Elmar is sensational, especially when you think of its date of origin, the Elmarit is no slouch either. The slightly lower contrast may even be an advantage, especially when you shoot digital and can adjust it in post-processing.

Admittedly, you need a roomy bag and and a strong shoulder - but the Tele-Elmar is too damn heavy for its speed, too.

The old man from the Age of 13.5 cm

[zeitz]

wstotler

Are you aware that the f4 Elmar and the f4 Tele-Elmar are not the same lenses? Be sure what you are buying.

[jaapv]

Good point. I missed that one. Tele-Elmar it is.

[wstotler]

Originally Posted by zeitz

wstotler

Are you aware that the f4 Elmar and the f4 Tele-Elmar are not the same lenses? Be sure what you are buying.

Thanks--yes. I bought the f/4 *Elmar*--old school. (Photo attached below.) I figured it would be a good "vintage" match with my 90mm Summicron Type II. When it arrives both the 90 and the 135 are off to DAG for a little TLC.

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

The answer to 'what is it best for?' is 'what a 180mm lens on a 24x36 camera is best for'. And that is pretty self-evident.

Lars--never having a length longer than 90mm I was asking seriously. Point taken about a subject being "gone" from the frame when one shoots.

jaapv--Thanks for the sample images. Answered my question precisely.

Thanks!

[jimmy pro]

Only a word of caution. I tried the trick of rotating the lens past the stop to bring on the 90 framelines, but I found them way far off. Not so much at infinity, as you'd expect because all the frames are too small at infinity so the 90 frames are less than the 90 actually shows (though still more than the 135). But at close distance you really have to allow about 30% all around or else you cut off major parts of the subject. So if much of what you want to shoot are subjects inside maybe 20 ft, then probably the Elmarit with the eyes is a better choice. Personally I think a 135 finder frame would be for me a much more useful upgrade than a friggin' glass LCD cover.

[jaapv]

A matter of experience - easy to compensate. I find I do that automatically.

[brill64]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Good choice. I use it mainly for two reasons:

Reason 1:





Reason 2 with Visoflex (nothing else)

Extraordinary!

[andit]

Hi there Will,

I make use of the 135mm f/4.0 Tele-Elmar (one of the last one produced, with the built in hood). As pointed out here in the thread, focusing and framing is a bit difficult. For focusing I make use of the "twice the size of the rangefinder patch" rule. This does work quite well. Also, to make things easier, I use the 1.35x Megaperls magnifier - in fact its on the camera permanently. So even when I'm working with the 21mm Elmarit, I still use the magnifier to see the focusing patch better.

If you need the extra stop of light, go for the Elmarit. Otherwise, and to avoid the goggles, I'd rather stick to the Tele-Elmar. Below is an example of the type of images that one uses the 135mm for.

Hope this helps.

Andreas

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by wstotler

Thanks--yes. I bought the f/4 *Elmar*--old school. (Photo attached below.) I figured it would be a good "vintage" match with my 90mm Summicron Type II. When it arrives both the 90 and the 135 are off to DAG for a little TLC.




Lars--never having a length longer than 90mm I was asking seriously. Point taken about a subject being "gone" from the frame when one shoots.

jaapv--Thanks for the sample images. Answered my question precisely.

Thanks!

Well, the Elmar "not Tele" if with good glass has anyway an optical and image quality not too far from the Tele... I used it a lot on SM Leicas and never was dissatisifed. The only issue, imho, is HANDLING : the Elmar, not being a tele, is longer than the T-E and, also, its focusing barrel is much more advanced: this makes the act of focusing someway less easy than with the TE... and with some little more risk of shaking when (as in Jaap first pic) you are dynamically focusing following your subject.

[wstotler]

Originally Posted by wstotler

Thanks--yes. I bought the f/4 *Elmar*--old school. (Photo attached below.) I figured it would be a good "vintage" match with my 90mm Summicron Type II. When it arrives both the 90 and the 135 are off to DAG for a little TLC.

The lens arrived yesterday. To my surprise, Ex+ means all but brand new. Only a few light surface scratches on the underside of the barrel.

Incredible, actually, to get a lens from 1960 (based on its serial number), mount it up on my M8, screw in an IR cut filter, and shoot it--out of the box, like it's new. It's 48 years old, after all.

The weight of the lens (compared to the 90mm Summicron Type II or even the 35mm Summicron ASPH) was pretty light! It's very compact for what it is. (E.g., the photos I've seen of it made it look much larger than it was.)

Focusing and shooting at f/4 works fine close up (5 to 10 feet) but stopping down to 5.6 helps when shooting objects farther than 10-15 feet away. Focusing seems to be OK with the 1.25x magnifier.

Puts claims that sharpness really doesn't improve by stopping this lens down and after first experimentation he seems to be right.

Image quality is good--on par with the 90mm Type II--but of course without the "tack sharp" performance of the modern 35mm or 50mm Summicron ASPH models.

Colors have a different character, too. Nothing scientific on that but the color looks slightly different than with the modern ASPH lenses (or the 90mm Type II).

For the price paid, happy. Very, very happy.

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback and comments in this thread.

Thanks,
Will

[gramsi]

With a little focus bracketing I think the old elmar (mine is 180xxxx) can be amazingly sharp.
Some days ago Visoflex 3, iso 320, -2/3 EV, Elmar closed to 5.6, 1/2000 speed, handheld: