135/4 teleElmar vs 135 apo (moved)

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

Thanks Rami , that just put a extra nail on the box to get the APO. I just need sharp wide open and this seems to be the best choice for my needs

[adan]

Here's my comparative test from 4 years ago:

 

Leica and Rangefinders Forum: 135 Tele-Elmar vs. 135 APO-Telyt-M

 

Purely looking at resolution, I ranked the lenses/apertures like this (best to weakest):

 

APO@5.6 - APO@4 - TE@5.6 - APO@3.4 - TE@4

 

I'm not sure I follow Rami's comment that "closing down even a little lost much of its qualities...", because in my experience the TE IMPROVES (slightly) stopping down from f/4 to f/5.6, and then maintains the peak f/5.6 performance at all smaller apertures.

 

I gave the APO a fresh look at this past PMA. Decided to stick with the TE. The APO is a bit cleaner and less muddy, as well as having a tiny resolution edge most of the time.

 

But it just didn't make sense - for me - to buy a lens that costs more than any 2 or 3 of my other lenses when it is not even supported by the M8 as regards framelines or coding.

 

If used 135APO prices ever drop back to where they were when I did those tests in 2003($1295) then I may well reconsider.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes I am looking for under 1500 any more than that , I may have to rethink this

[rami G]

Here's my comparative test from 4 years ago:

 

Leica and Rangefinders Forum: 135 Tele-Elmar vs. 135 APO-Telyt-M

 

Purely looking at resolution, I ranked the lenses/apertures like this (best to weakest):

 

APO@5.6 - APO@4 - TE@5.6 - APO@3.4 - TE@4

 

I'm not sure I follow Rami's comment that "closing down even a little lost much of its qualities...", because in my experience the TE IMPROVES (slightly) stopping down from f/4 to f/5.6, and then maintains the peak f/5.6 performance at all smaller apertures.

 

I gave the APO a fresh look at this past PMA. Decided to stick with the TE. The APO is a bit cleaner and less muddy, as well as having a tiny resolution edge most of the time.

 

But it just didn't make sense - for me - to buy a lens that costs more than any 2 or 3 of my other lenses when it is not even supported by the M8 as regards framelines or coding.

 

If used 135APO prices ever drop back to where they were when I did those tests in 2003($1295) then I may well reconsider.

 

As I pointed out, I don't really remember what was this "magic f stop" that gives the Tele its great name, I thought it was full aperture but I am not sure, it was quit a few years ago and I did end up upgrading. I do remember that there was a very particular f stop where the lens performs great, but in other f stops the Apo is much better.

[cbretteville]

Erwin notes the performance of the T-E as "best aperture is 5.6 where outstandingly good image quality is delivered. This performance holds until f11..." For the APO he writes "Best aperture is f4 where superb image quality is delivered. This performance holds until f11..."

 

Guess you have to evaluate how much use the lens will see and if the APO is worth the extra money. To me that answer is: no it isn't. The T-E's price/performance is such that I can keep it for those occations where I need a longer reach than a 90 will give me without feeling I have too much money tied up in a lens that sees little use.

 

- C

[DaveEP]

I realise it's a few days since the last post in this thread, but I have a small update.

 

I just purchased a used (but-like-new) 135apo of another forum member, and I am pretty impressed by how sharp this is - even at f3.4 compared to my f2.8+goggles. There is 'some' improvement at f4 & f5.6, but f3.4 does a pretty damn good job as it is.

 

What I have found is that when shooting 'distant' objects, i.e. objects that are several hundred yards away, the 90mm frame lines are pretty close. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I was expecting more of a half way between the patch and 90mm lines, and was suprised how much more I actually got in the frame when reviewing.

 

The other thing I found was that my focusing was no more acurate (and if anything slightly less acurate) with stacked eye piece magnifiers than with either a single magnifier or even without a magnifier at all. Oh well....

 

Here is one sample taken today at f3.4, followed by a 100% crops. Not intended to be 'art', I was just 'testing'.... no sharpening or other processing. Straight from camera and resize / crop. I think I can improve on this focusing a little too - especially with a little bit of focus bracketing too

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!

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I realise it's a few days since the last post in this thread, but I have a small update.

 

I just purchased a used (but-like-new) 135apo of another forum member, and I am pretty impressed by how sharp this is - even at f3.4 compared to my f2.8+goggles. The is 'some' improvement at f4 & f5.6, but f3.4 does a pretty damn good job as it is.

 

 

That is good to hear. I now have a f/2.8 eyed version, actually 2 of them, and will be selling them and then get the 3.4 APO version.

 

What I have found is that when shooting 'distant' objects, i.e. objects that are several hundred yards away, the 90mm frame lines are pretty close. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I was expecting more of a half way between the patch and 90mm lines, and was suprised how much more I actually got in the frame when reviewing.

 

The other thing I found was that my focusing was no more acurate (and if anything slightly less acurate) with stacked eye piece magnifiers than with either a single magnifier or even without a magnifier at all. Oh well....

 

I've also found that to be true. I find the magnifier actually changes how I see the rangefinder patch. I have now put a +1.5 diopter on the magnifier, as apposed to the +1 I use on the camera without the magnifier attached, and I can focus more accurately. But in the end I very rarely use the magnifier.

 

 

Here is one sample taken today at f3.4, followed by a 100% crops. Not intended to be 'art', I was just 'testing'.... no sharpening or other processing. Straight from camera and resize / crop. I think I can improve on this focusing a little too - especially with a little bit of focus bracketing too

[MarkP]

Pardon me for digging up this old thread but looking to buy a 3.4/135 APO Telyt-M or 4.0/135 Tele-Elmar-M (last version with boult-in hood) for use with my M9.

 

Does anyone who has experience with these two lenses have anything to add to this thread regarding these two lenses. Although I'm less concerned with the cost, it seems to me that the APO's benefits over the TE are really marginal, or is this not the case?

Edited September 28, 2012 by MarkP

[luigi bertolotti]

Pardon me for digging up this old thread but looking to buy a 3.4/135 APO Telyt-M or 4.0/135 Tele-Elmar-M (last version with boult-in hood) for use with my M9.

 

Does anyone who has experience with these two lenses have anything to add to this thread regarding these two lenses. Although I'm less concerned with the cost, it seems to me that the APO's benefits over the TE are really marginal, or is this not the case?

 

They seem to be rather marginal apart, probably, in the f4 range : but is also true that, usually, the TE 135 f4 LAST version is priced rather higher than the older versions (which have the minus of no hood bulit-in, and the plus of removable lenshead for macro) : so the typical comparision in price is the Apo Telyt vs. the TE in first version(s) , which typically shows such a significant spare of money for the TE that is hard to choose the Apo Telyt (but of course, one can always make what he likes the most).

[sblitz]

i have the original version t-e f/4 (from 1965 based on the serial number) e39, picked it up at a really good price, using it on my m4 and m9 (focus a bit easier on the m4) and think it is an absolutely fabulous lens. f5.6 a bit more forgiving so i tend to shoot there mostly . . . . . for $500 or so, it is a buy.

[UliWer]

Pardon me for digging up this old thread but looking to buy a 3.4/135 APO Telyt-M or 4.0/135 Tele-Elmar-M (last version with boult-in hood) for use with my M9.

 

Does anyone who has experience with these two lenses have anything to add to this thread regarding these two lenses. Although I'm less concerned with the cost, it seems to me that the APO's benefits over the TE are really marginal, or is this not the case?

 

I don't know the Tele-Elmar, though it is common understanding that it already is an excellent lens while the Apo-Telyt is one of the best lenses ever made. If you had the chance to compare them, I'd look for the following:

1. "purple fringing". The Apo-Telyt shows some though less than other Leica lenses with extreme high resolution. The old 4/135 Elmar, mentioned above, shows - good as it otherwise is - very strong purple fringing in critical situations. So I could imagine, that the TE has more problems in this respect than the A-T - though this is only an assumption.

 

2. Flare. The Apo-Telyt is not as flare resistant as the best Leica lenses. It is no great problem, though on rare occasions you might loose a picture spoilt by flare. May be the TE differs in this respect.

 

4. Focus throw: as 135mm are difficult to focus, a long focus-throw helps. If the throw of the TE is shorter it would be bad for focussing, if its longer, it would take you an eternity.

[wizard]

I own and use the Apo for about ten years now. If money isn't the decisive factor, go for the Apo. Its resolution even at full aperture is simply outstanding. And having roughly half an f-stop more as full aperture isn't a bad thing either. Lastly, the Tele-Elmar is quite heavy. But as many have rightfully pointed out, the Tele-Elmar IS a very good lens, and at the right price may be a bargain.

 

Andy

[MarkP]

Thanks for the advice. I'm leaning towards the APO lens.

 

 

MODERATORS: CAN THIS THREAD PLEASE BE MOVED TO THE LENS SUB-FORUM?

[pop]

Thread moved by request of MarkP

[wlaidlaw]

I would agree that the T-E is at its best at f4 or f5.6 but I don't see that as a limitation. With a hand held 135mm lens, the faster the shutter speed the better. The reduction in quality at f8 is minuscule in any case. Bang per buck, with a mint T-E for around $750 against a 135 APO, which produces only slightly better quality in a few circumstances at $3500, I know which way I decided.

 

Wilson

[kokoshawnuff]

If you've not had much experience with the 135mm I'd consider getting the first version TE 135 (exactly the same optics as the telescoping second version), then going from there. If you're already set on getting the best 135mm, get the Telyt. I love my new Telyt after using the TE for three years, there is a noticeable difference (even on film) in resolution and contrast at all apertures. The one thing I'd suggest is don't get the ridiculously expensive second version TE when the first version is available, as was previously mentioned, for under $500.

[luigi bertolotti]

If you've not had much experience with the 135mm I'd consider getting the first version TE 135 (exactly the same optics as the telescoping second version), then going from there. If you're already set on getting the best 135mm, get the Telyt. I love my new Telyt after using the TE for three years, there is a noticeable difference (even on film) in resolution and contrast at all apertures. The one thing I'd suggest is don't get the ridiculously expensive second version TE when the first version is available, as was previously mentioned, for under $500.

 

Right... the last version (2nd or 3rd, depending on considering "versions" the diffirent finishings of the first one) is very scarce and this keeps the price too high in user's terms.

My opinion is that the better contrast of the Telyt that you quote can be also due to the fact that the first TEs have, probably, a coating less effective and (in some items I saw) even prone to wear.

[wlaidlaw]

I suspect that on back shelves of dealers, there will still be some new 135 T-E's sitting around. The dealer I bought mine from in Stuttgart in 2008, had two. He was selling them as collector's items but still at the very reasonable price of €450. He was horrified when after buying it, I immediately mounted on my M8, saying: "it's ruined now - it has been put on a camera".

 

As Luigi says, I am guessing like a lot of older Leica lenses, the coating is quite soft, so be very careful when you clean and blow/brush the dust off first.

 

The other advantage of the older lens is that it makes a very good macro lens, when you unscrew the head and mount it on a bellows with a Visoflex. See image below. I may be using it even more like this when my new 'M' arrives

 

I post an image taken with the 135 T-E at f8 off the Costa Smeralda in Sardinia. Certainly in bright sunlight, it is not short of contrast. You must use the provided sun hood to prevent flare. An even longer sun hood might be even better. The bluish background is the hills of the south coast of Corsica in the distance.

 

Wilson

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!

[philipus]

Wilson, thanks for posting the photo of the Visoflex setup. I was actually wondering what it would look like. What magnification does the bellows give?

 

I am still trying to understand the Visoflex concept and had a look in the Wiki. Is it right that it is possible to mount the lens head on the Visoflex directly, without bellows, using the OTZFO? If so, the macro setup is even quite portable.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Phillip,

 

From memory it is about 2X. You can mount direct on the Visoflex with a 16464K (the same as the Elmar 65 focussing mount) not sure what the letter code for that is.

 

Wilson