135/4 teleElmar vs 135 apo (moved)

[DaveEP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did quite a bit of reading here and there on the 135/4, and can't decide if people who are saying the 135/4 is 'as good' as the apo are doing so to justify to "themselves" that the 135/4 is as good because they can't afford the apo, or if it's true.

 

I currently have (a 1971ish) 135/2.8 with goggles and am hating it. I need to replace it with one without the goggles (the focusing NEVER lines up through the goggles).

 

Price difference between the F4 and the APO is £300 (F4) to £1500 (APO), so 5 times the cost. I realise I am not going to get 5 times the quality, but then I don't want to be upgrading again in 6 months if the F4 is not all that it's cracked up to be, because people were too busy 'self justifying' a cheaper purchase.

 

Does any one have (or has had) both - and can give a reasonable comparison? Putts seems to think the apo is the sharpest ever etc etc....

 

I will spend the £1500 if the difference can easily be seen at 100% (thinking about stock) or on A2 prints.

[Guest liesevolvo]

I tried out both, and I would NEVER spend so much money for a marginal improvement. The 'old' Tele-Elmar 135 is so cheap at the moment, because all the M8-shooters are looking for the 'short' lenses. Grab the chance!

 

Leonard Liese from Cologne/Germany

[Advertisement]

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

[cbretteville]

I second that recommendation. The old T-Es can be found in like new shape for a song. I don't use mine all that much, but it is a wonderful lens. There are some excellent exaples of it in use on the M8 here, both on a visoflex and in its own mount.

 

- C

[richardkw]

which version do you use/recommend:

 

version 1 or 2 with removable hood

 

or version 3 with telescopic hood?

[DaveEP]

Perhaps I should add that low light wide open performance is important on this stuff. I have previously been using 1Ds2 + 70-200 f2.8 @ ISO 3200 f2.8 for this particular venue...

[lars_bergquist]

which version do you use/recommend:

 

version 1 or 2 with removable hood

 

or version 3 with telescopic hood?

 

Optically they are identical. The advantage of the later mount versions are entirely a matter of ergonomics. If the older versions feel all right, buy them. If the lens hood is missing, you can buy it from Leica – it is the same as used with the Macro-Elmar!

 

The Tele-Elmar is really a formidable lens. You need practically lab conditions to see the difference between it and the Apo-Telyt. Its main advantage in practical use may well be the somewhat lower weight.

 

The old man from the Age of the 135

[grober]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yup, I sold my very clean 135 T-E as part of the cash build-up for the M8 but now wish I still had it. I'm sure the 135/3.4 is superb but the older Tele-Elmar can still hold its own.

 

-g

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I am right in the middle of getting the APO . I have a nice credit at my dealers from a trade and i am after one. Just waiting for him to find one or find one cheap myself than get something else. I need the wide open performance and even 3.4 is cutting is close

[Woody Campbell]

Perhaps I should add that low light wide open performance is important on this stuff. I have previously been using 1Ds2 + 70-200 f2.8 @ ISO 3200 f2.8 for this particular venue...

 

Keep the 70-200 - my copy is outstanding - actually kind of magical. The T-E is also excellent. The problem that I have with it is this: it is effectively a 180 and optically it outperforms my ability to hand-hold it. At these longer focal lengths Canon's IS become increasingly important.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

I have both. On the M8 I would recommend the 135/4 Tele Elmar with the removable hood, as the lens head screws off and can be used with a Visoflex (in my view preferably a model IIa), which is also reasonably cheap. There is no really accurate viewfinder for the approx. 180mm equivalent when using the M8 and you will want to use a tripod anyway, so the Viso does not add much inconvenience. You will need the erect finder for the IIa, or else buy the Visoflex III. The cost of lens+Visoflex will be MUCH less than the 135 3.4 Apo.

The Apo's performance is absolutely brilliant, but framing accurately and hand holding is a problem for me with the M8. With the film M cameras I would opt for the Apo.

Hope this helps.

Teddy

[DaveEP]

I am right in the middle of getting the APO . I have a nice credit at my dealers from a trade and i am after one. Just waiting for him to find one or find one cheap myself than get something else. I need the wide open performance and even 3.4 is cutting is close

 

Yes, that is what worries me - 3.4 is not 2.8, but it's better than f4

 

Keep the 70-200 - my copy is outstanding - actually kind of magical. The T-E is also excellent. The problem that I have with it is this: it is effectively a 180 and optically it outperforms my ability to hand-hold it. At these longer focal lengths Canon's IS become increasingly important.

 

The 70-200 is probably the only lens that is keeping me in Canon equipment. If the apo can come close, it may be the deciding factor on replacing the 1Ds2 with a second M8 instead.

[Bob Ross]

Perhaps I should add that low light wide open performance is important on this stuff. I have previously been using 1Ds2 + 70-200 f2.8 @ ISO 3200 f2.8 for this particular venue...

I have the 2nd version Tele-Elmar which I think is amazing and fun. One thing to think about is focusing accuracy. In some discussions back aways about the range finder base, I backed into the formula to find the minimum f/stop to accuratly and reliably focus for a give COC for the various focal lengths. The 90mm came up with f/2.5 and the 135mm came in at f/5.5. In other words, you need a smaller aperture in order to have enough DOF to cover the error factor from the short (for 135mm) RF base. I haven't used my T-E wide open that I recall, even with film, usually going for f/8. The bokeh for my unit is very nice. For an inexpensive trial for 135mm, even the older 135mm f/4.5 Hecktor gives interesting results, based on some some images that I saw posted on another forum.

Bob

[DaveEP]

I have the 2nd version Tele-Elmar which I think is amazing and fun. One thing to think about is focusing accuracy. In some discussions back aways about the range finder base, I backed into the formula to find the minimum f/stop to accuratly and reliably focus for a give COC for the various focal lengths. The 90mm came up with f/2.5 and the 135mm came in at f/5.5. In other words, you need a smaller aperture in order to have enough DOF to cover the error factor from the short (for 135mm) RF base. I haven't used my T-E wide open that I recall, even with film, usually going for f/8. The bokeh for my unit is very nice. For an inexpensive trial for 135mm, even the older 135mm f/4.5 Hecktor gives interesting results, based on some some images that I saw posted on another forum.

Bob

 

Interesting. I often do focus bracketing at 2.8 when manually focusing already ( and AF is sometimes pretty useless in these conditions as it seems to focus on the drum kit and not the drummer - as an easy example!) - but I will certainly keep this in mind. Thanks.

[andit]

"135mm, f/4 Tele-Elmar-M: Over it's entire focusing range from infinity to 1.5m, the optical performance at full aperture is recognised as one of the best in the entire Leica system. It is free of coma and light sources in the picture area cause no ghost images or reflections. Vignetting is minimal and distortion so slight it can be ignored" - Dennis Laney, Leica Lens Practice.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Just wanted to share with you what the "pro's" have to say about the f/4.0 Tele Elmar. I was in much the same situation as you, and after much thought, ordered a version 3 (with built in hood and 46mm filter diameter) just a short while ago from KEH in Atlanta. It should be arriving here this week.

 

I also looked at the 2.8, but must admit that it was the goggles that put me off. It must have done so with many photographers. Production of this lens was stopped in 1985 (version 2), and if owners wanted this focal length, they had to use the 2.8 version. Due to demand, this lens was re-introduced in the version 3 series, in 1993. I'm not exactly sure when it was replaced by the APO - I seem to remember mentioned somewhere that this was in 1997, but am not certain.

 

From what has been said here on the forum, and some of the images that have been posted, I do not think that the images are 5x better. So, I'm hoping as I have also just ordered one, the f/4 Tele Elmar should be more than fine.

 

Hope this helps you along a bit.

 

Andreas.

[rami G]

I had the latest Tele-Elmarit and now I have the Apo. I agree that both are graet lenses but the Apo is great at all F stops and I remember that I was rather limitted with the Tele since closing down even a little lost much of its qualities (I think that was the issue). For a while I had both as I needed the 135 for extensive work and I found that the difference between them is there and it is quit like the difference between 35 IV version (a very lovable lens) and the 35 cron asph. I think there is a certain grain of myth in saying that they are practically "the same" or that the apo does not justify the cost. What is really intended is that "anyhow you are not going to use the lens for much" rather than that there is no significant difference. THe Tele is a great lens like many old lenses of Leica. But the Apo is a great modern lens with one of the best MTFs on the Leica line, and also the colors with the Apo version are much nicer.

[cbretteville]

which version do you use/recommend:

 

version 1 or 2 with removable hood

 

or version 3 with telescopic hood?

 

The one with a removeble hood and lens head is what I have. E39, serial #2420xxx.

 

- C

[sergiolov]

I recently bought for nearly nothing not one, but 2 tele elmars on ebay. Great performers both with the viso and rangefinder.(first model )

A few days ago I tested the lens in action at a local event. Here is a link to a few shots.

The wide ones are with the Zeiss 25 2,8.

Hope this helps to get an idea.

Sergio

 

FESTA BOSINA

[ho_co]

@David--

You definitely won't be unhappy with the Tele-Elmar.

 

But I suggest something different: Have the 135/2.8 fixed. It has a couple things going against it: a) The goggles get bumped and knocked out of alignment and become worse than useless, as you have discovered; and it's big and heavy. But it is codable for the M8 and gives you much more accurate framing than the 135/4. And if the goggles are adjusted, it also increases the rangefinder base by 1.5x, giving you also better focus than the other M 135s.

 

@Bob--

The fun thing about the focus formulas is being able to substitute CoC and f.l. and seeing just what the effects are of any change. What's interesting to me is what LFI said two years or so back:

 

Their chart compared the then available 0.85x, 0.72x and 0.58x viewfinder magnifications. The 135/3.4 was at the 'barely focusable' point on the standard 0.72x finder, i.e. the aperture curve crossed the focal length exactly at the 0.72x line, indicating no room for tired eyes, low-contrast subject etc. But after showing that, the author commented that these values were based on the standard out-of-date circle of confusion and that it should really be recalculated with a smaller CoC.

 

Summary--

A) the 135/3.4 is optically best but framing is somewhat and focus quite 'iffy' on the M8.

the 135/4 is second but has the same framing issue though slightly better focusability on the M8.

C) the 135/2.8 with goggles has much better framing AND fully accurate focusing on the M8 because of the goggles.

 

--HC

[DaveEP]

@Dave--

Summary--

A) the 135/3.4 is optically best but framing is somewhat and focus quite 'iffy' on the M8.

the 135/4 is second but has the same framing issue though slightly better focusability on the M8.

C) the 135/2.8 with goggles has much better framing AND fully accurate focusing on the M8 because of the goggles.

 

--HC

 

Why would the f3.4 be harder to focus on the M8 than the F4 at the same apertures?

 

The 2.8+Goggles has the added pain that I can't change lenses without also removing the grip

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

The 2.8+Goggles has the added pain that I can't change lenses without also removing the grip

OOPS--Should have thought of that. Good point, David!

 

Why would the f3.4 be harder to focus on the M8 than the F4 at the same apertures?

You are correct, of course, at the same aperture there will be no difference.

 

And in fact, my formulation is inexact. The question of rangefinder accuracy has to do with baselength, visual acuity, subject contrast, tolerances in the mechanism etc. What I should have said is what Bob already said: due to the focal length and base length, the focus accuracy of the 135's without attached magnifier is more limited than is the case with the 135/2.8.

 

In other words, at f/8, both the 135 apo and the Tele-Elmarit will be fine. But DoF isn't sufficient for either lens to focus accurately wide open on the M8; therefore, the extra 1/2 stop of the APO is theoretically not that useful.

 

Here is a chart using a reduced CoC plotting aperture against focal length on x-axis and base length on y-axis. If the curve for a given aperture is BELOW the point where that focal length and base length intersect, the combination will work without problem.

 

Remember, the chart is based on more stringent CoC than is usually used; and since there are some assumptions built into the formulas, people often do better than is predicted here.

 

Focusing accuracy of the 135/2.8 isn't plotted. To see the effect of its goggles, plot a point on the vertical line for 135 mm at 1.5x the value of the baselength in question:

 

M3 EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 95.57 mm

0.85x cameras’ EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 88.29 mm

0.72x cameras’ EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 74.79 mm

0.58x cameras’ EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 60.26 mm

With 1.25x magnifier, M8 EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 88.29 mm

Without 1.25x magnifier, M8 EMBL with 135/2.8 becomes 70.64 mm

 

Hope this helps a bit. The chart and last paragraph come from a long thread on focusing that dates back a few months.

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!