Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Compact telephoto for compressed landscapes?

exile

By exile
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

exile

exile

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

afternoon all,

 

I once owned a 135mm f/4 TE. Nice lens optically, but quite heavy.

Right now, my longest lens is the 75/2.5 colour heliar. I'm looking for something much longer (135-200mm) for use in compressed landscapes, architectural details, etc.

I need it to be as light-weight as possible, and since it is going to be used stopped down (f/8 or narrower probably), the maximum aperture is not a key consideration. Having said that, if weight is equal between two lenses, I will always take the faster optic. Close focussing ability is a distant third consideration. Even though I'm going to be stopping the lens down quite a bit, I think I still need RF coupling given the shallow depth of field of telephoto lenses. Screwmount or M mount is fine.

 

 

Any suggestions?

 

I see quite a few different 135,150, 180 and 200mm lenses out there on the used market from various known and obscure manufacturers.

 

Are there any out there that are optically decent at f/8 and weigh about 300g?:confused:

 

Thanks in advance for any direction you can give me on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JTrunck

JTrunck

Posted
Posted

Exile,

 

I'm new to Leica M photography and have not found anything longer than 135 in my research. I know this is not what you are asking for, but....

 

My solution is to use the Panasonic GH1 with the 14-140 OIS lens (28-280 FOV). It is a light weight, small combo with decent but not spectacular results. A smaller Nikon, like the D300 with the 70-300 would give better results, but be bigger and heavier.

 

Jim

 

http://www.jimtrunck.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

The 135 f/3.4 APO is actually a couple of ounces lighter than any version of the 135 f/4 TE (despite being faster and larger diameter). The TE has an glass element 3/4 of an inch thick, and in the early versions, a lot of extra brass for the threading to let the head be unscrewed for use on the Visoflex. The APO is about 460g. (vs. 495-550g for various generations of the TE)

 

You won't find a lens longer than 135mm that fits the M body without the aid of a Visoflex - which ain't light, either.

 

300g for a 135mm+ telephoto is a pretty steep standard to meet - even the 50 f/1.4 weighs 335g.

 

There used to be a couple of Japanese 2x teleconverters made (Komura and somebody else). Not very good image quality (not like today's APO or ED converters) - the link to the RF was of marginal precision - and by the time you factor in the weight of the TC and the accessory finder, even an ultralight 90 TE won't be ultralight anymore. LEICA: Komura Telemore 95 for Leica

 

May as well face it, "compressed telephoto landcapes" is what they invented SLRs for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
elgenper

elgenper

Posted
Posted

Another vote for the Panasonic G(H) 1 way. As portable as a Visoflex, even better focussing, cheaper, and much larger selection of usable lenses. My G1 with a 2.8/60 MicroNikkor will complement my M9 gear for closeups once the flowers return, and the 45-200 isn´t much extra weight (and gives IS..).

 

BTW, I just come to think of my service in the Swedish army in the ´60:es, when I was actually allotted one of those Swedish Army Leicas (didn´t like it much then; now I wish I had reported it as "lost", and paid the nominal value...;) ). One of the lenses was a Telyt 200 with no Visoflex, just a short tube and a sports finder... Never saw any usable results from that combo, but anyhow, they do exist.

 

Not recommended for serious use, and not cheap with today´s collector values....

Link to post
Share on other sites
christoph_d

christoph_d

Posted
Posted

Andy,

 

Before and after the war Zeiss made a Sonnar 1:4 135mm lens for their Contax Rangefinders.

Weight 300 g.

Length <10cm.

The versions after the war are T* coated. The performance even with todays

standards in mind should still be good.

 

Pity it doesn't fit the M... it looks like a dwarf next to the TE 1:4 135. ;)

 

Rgds

 

Christoph

Link to post
Share on other sites
luigi bertolotti

luigi bertolotti

Posted
Posted

The Sonnar 135 quoted above appears sometime also in Leica Screw Mount... but I think is better not to pursue strictly the "300 g" goal and take one of the "normal" Leica 135s.

Of course, you can find a nice Leitz 250 for Leicaflex (prices low at the moment, it seems), add a MtoR adapter (easy to find) and enjoy a good lens for "tele-compressed landscapes"... but only at infinity or next to... :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
250swb

250swb

Posted
Posted

You could consider an Olympus EP-1 or EP-2 body with a Leica M adapter. You'd get Image Stabilisation, would still be able to use your M lenses in MF mode and benefit from the lens rendering, and your 135 would become a 270mm! The image quality of the m4/3 system is pretty darned good.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
250swb

250swb

Posted
Posted

Well, no, cropping doesn't achieve the same results if you take resolution into account. The pixel pitch of a m4/3 sensor is already greater than the M9 sensor, and its resolution is going to remain a constant whichever lens you put on it. The relative pixel pitch of a cropped M9 image can only go one way, down. Mind you, some people like to crop images, it saves the effort of getting it right in the first place.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
OttoG

OttoG

Posted
Posted

I don't own a digital M camera to test it on, but some years ago, I bought a Canon FDn 200/4 to use with film M's. The results on Kodachrome for relatively long distances and guessed focusing were excellent. With a digital camera, focus bracketing would of course be easy and take away the guesswork.

 

The lens has inner focusing and a built-in hood. I selected it after some fairly comprehensive research on the weight and size of various 180–200 mm lenses. If I remember correctly, there was a Pentax M42 lens that was smaller but heavier and slower, and there was an Olympus lens that was actually slightly smaller and lighter than the Canon. The Olympus lens might have been a good option, but I could not find it for sale at the time, an adaptor would have been more expensive than the Canon to Leica screw mount adaptor that I was able to buy used, and I could not find a review of the lens, but instead I found several claims that slower Olympus OM lenses are generally no excellent performers. There is also a Nikon 200/4 and an older Canon FD 200/4 without inner focusing, but both are much heavier than the Canon FDn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ccmsosse

Guest ccmsosse

Posted
Posted
You could consider an Olympus EP-1 or EP-2 body with a Leica M adapter. You'd get Image Stabilisation, would still be able to use your M lenses in MF mode and benefit from the lens rendering, and your 135 would become a 270mm! The image quality of the m4/3 system is pretty darned good.

 

Steve

 

I owned the EP1 and now own the GF1 - I have the Lumix 14-140 as well as the 45-200 (90-400mm equivalent) - I also have the Voigtlander adapter for my Leica 75 Summarit, 90 Elmarit and 135 Tele-Elmar.

I must admit that I was in love with the GF1 (size, function etc) until I got the M9; even I can see the difference and the superior - far superior - image of the M9. Since I have the M9 it is my go-to camera ... but the GF1 is a good back-up. I also find the color rendering with the Leica glass on the GF1 more pleasing than using Lumix/Panasonic lenses ... crop factor of 2 gives me quite a range, but the I prefer to use the Leica either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...