Leica ELMARIT-R 135mm f/2.8 (vs Nikon 135 f/2)

[vk2109]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

I am looking to get a 135mm lens that i can use with my SL and i see the Leica Elmarit R 135 f/2.8 v2 sells for around 250-300 and was wondering 

if people have thoughts about it ? i didn't find too many reviews.

 

I see however the nikon 135 f/2 has also great reviews ( saw one on ebay for $500) .. does that Leica one still outperforms the old nikon ?

 

Thank you !!

 

Vadim 

[fernando_b]

Vadim,

if you look at the photo section, you can find (search with keyword) dozen of image. I can say this:

- it is flare prone,

- it is weak at f/2.8,

on contrary:

- it is an excellent lens from f/4 (where I use it).

Fernando.

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

Do not think too much about one versus the other.

The R 135 is an old lens of the best time of Leica. It is quite heavy, but I do not mind, because I like the 135mm focus length.

It is a all-rounder. For me it is THE classic Leica tele.

The Nikon 2/135mm DC is a special lens. It offers the possibility to steer the amount of bokeh (not just by the aperture.) It is not a soft-focus lens, it is VERY sharp when DC is turned off (default position). It is even bigger than the Leica. But it works also great on the SL, because here you can see in the finder (EVF) the subtle changes in bokeh. With an optical finder you can usually only guess what the difference is.

 

Sorry, I notice now that I probably made a mistake. You probably mean the 2/135 AIs, not the AF 2/135 DC. Sorry I do not know this lens.

Edited June 7, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Locutus]

I wonder if there is some strong sample variation with this lens, the samples i've seen at f/2.8 from it looked pretty nice to me. The other option here is obviously that my standards are too low :-)

[steppenw0lf]

I also like the "old darlings" very much. Maybe they are not like the "Apo"s and the "Asph"s, but I enjoy their different quality. Foolish if a relative "weakness" wide open keeps you from using them. (This is simply physics). The modern cameras (e.g. the SL) are working so well at high ISOs that I rarely ever have to use them wide-open, unless I really want to  because of the subject.

Here you find some very nice examples (they are from the pre-SL era, and with a Canon camera, but never-mind).

https://rheker.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/die-untoten-sind-da-oder-leica-r-lebt/

And yes, it's written in german, but you can look at the pictures, anyway.

Edited June 9, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jaeger]

Hi VK2019, I am also coming to this comparison and choosing between these two lenses.  Can you let me know your final verdict, I am very interested to know.  Thank you.

Edited June 10, 2018 by jaeger

[Steve McGarrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think it's bad at f/2.8. The Elmarit-R 135 a lovely lens from Mandler era, with a very nice rendition, not-great-but-good sharpness at 2.8 and very good from f/4 on, even in the corners. At the current price tag, it's a bargain.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Steve McGarrett

[TomB_tx]

I’ve used the 135 R since 1969, and it has never let me down. I also have the 135 TeleElmar for the M, and find results comparable.

[Bill W]

Back when I had an extensive R system, the 135 was my favorite. It was the second lens I purchased for my R4. It is a real bargain today.

[fernando_b]

Back when I had an extensive R system, the 135 was my favorite. It was the second lens I purchased for my R4. It is a real bargain today.

I did the same! First bought R4 and Summicron 50, one year later 135/2.8...

Fernando.

[edstock]

the 135 focal length was/is a staple of camera lenses. It has been around for decades, it's design and mechanics have been tweaked and perfected. I love it for its versatility. It is a true "can do" lens.

[Toby Madrigal]

I’ve used the 135mm f2.8 Elmarit - R on my three Leicaflex SL bodies for five years and although heavy, I like the application and results. So I’m now seriously considering the M version to use with a pair of M4-P bodies. I’ve read extensively about it and particularly like the positive comments here. The tripod mount is invaluable and will definitely be using it on my monopod. I’ve just acquired a Gitzo one with shoulder stock. As far as the calibration of the auxiliary optical viewfinder is concerned, I’ll make a test with my neighbours car number plate and a 33’ tape measure. The elements and groups are identical for the M & R version. 
Both have a series one and two. The M lens has series VII filters for v1 and 55mm filters for v2. All were made in Canada. The R lenses had v1 made in Germany with series VII filters, and released in 1964 with 35/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8 for the Leicaflex. When the Leicaflex SL cameras were released in 1968, the 135 was made in Canada and had 55mm filters. People ask if the ‘goggles’ can be removed. Only with a hacksaw as they are integral to the lens. A final word of advice: There are a lot of Elmarit M lenses on the market. Shop around extensively until you get a clean one, inside and out.