Pleased with the 3,4/135 on the M9

[hydeca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I ordered this early this year and it finally arrived a couple of weeks ago.

 

Its super sharp and although getting critical focus is difficult, it can be achieved. No problems with calibration.

 

Leica should acquiesce on their position about not coding this lens. Even if their position that the lens is not suited to the digital M is justified its draconian not to save users the trouble of having to select it manually.

 

Results with the 1.25x magnifier have been variable. Moving the eye back from it a little works in some conditions but in others its easier to focus without it.

 

Can someone please explain what Leica mean when they say "its 1.33 extension factor makes it unsuitable for use on digital M's" means? It works as well if not better than any other lens on my M9, so what do they mean by "unsuitable"?

[hydeca]

Thanks for that clarification on the 1.33 extension factor; it relates to the M8/8.2, not the M9. So their policy on not encoding the 135 is out-of-whack with their current model digital M.

 

Anyway no big deal; its worth having even if I have to select it manually. The third-party kits turn me off so I'll ask Leica if they're prepared to encode next time I send the M9 in for service.

[Advertisement]

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

[esquire53]

Hi Hydeca,

 

The list of update capable M lenses for digital use was created in January 2009 and M9 in September of that year.

 

I wonder is they have changed their mind and just didn't changed the list.

 

Maybe you can send them an e-mail ...

 

I have the same lens and do not use it often, but sometimes, I just forgot to change the settings and it still works fine.

 

I don't think it's difficult to focus and I tried with and without magnifier. Is there a critical focus with 3.4; in open lense, it has something like +/-1m at 10m distance?

I think it is slow to focus, since the mechanic has to move a lot of metal and glass

 

cheers

Uwe

[Doc Henry]

"Leica should acquiesce on their position about not coding this lens".

Leica Solms doesn't code my Apo Telyt 135, because it is "difficult to focus"on my M9 according to Leica AG

"Results with the 1.25x magnifier have been variable. Moving the eye back from it a little works in some conditions but in others its easier to focus without it".

I don't use the magnifier when i focus on my M9 or M8

"Can someone please explain what Leica mean when they say "its 1.33 extension factor makes it unsuitable for use on digital M's" means"

..... may be it concerns M8 (x1,33)

Best

Henry

Edited October 23, 2011 by Doc Henry

[jaques]

it can be very annoying when you shoot a 135 coded as a 50 or similar. The camera removes all this vignetting that isn't there. Very hard to replace what is removed...

[chris_tribble]

Get a good machinist to mill the mount and then add the correct code. If you're in the UK Malcolm Taylor can do this very well. He did mine. His contacts on the Leica Repairs sticky...

[rafael_macia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John Milich has coded all my Leica lenses. He should be able to handle yours.

He is in Brooklyn,NYC.

jm@milich.com

[algrove]

I also got my 135 APO this year and coded it with the Manual Coding Kit. Used it all summer without auto coding hitches. Maybe you could try that first since the latest firmware gave a code for the 135 APO Telyt.

[Shade]

I can't imagine using a 135mm on a rangefinder. I guess you can, but I think I'm just too lazy to do so.. hahaha..

[swamiji]

I tried to code my Tele-Elmar 135mm f4 using the coder kit, as a Elmarit 135mm (goggles). It did not work, as the Elmarit sets the frame line selector as a 90mm. I had to hold the frame selector lever at the 90mm position for the coding to work.

 

While there may be a manual setting for the 135mm range, as far as I know there is only one 135mm 6-bit setting.... Elmarit 135mm f2.8 (goggles).

[01af]

... as far as I know there is only one 135 mm 6-bit setting ... Elmarit 135 mm 1:2.8 (goggles).

There are two; 9-1 is for the Elmarit, and 53-2 is for the Apo-Telyt. The code point for the Tele-Elmar is 39-0 which due to the zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded.

[chris_tribble]

It does work - but if you're using LR you won't get the lens NAME in Exif yet as Adobe's not incorporated that information yet. You WILL get the lens focal length though.

[lars_bergquist]

I do not find the Apo-Telyt particularly difficult to focus – not more difficult than my 90mm Elmarit-M, in fact. I use it with lens recognition on Auto, without any problems. You do not get the focal length or the name in EXIF, but so what? It works, therefore it works. Nice boke, too.

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Lens

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!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

An excellent samplephotograph,Lars,

thx for sharing your expertise again.

 

 

 

Best

GEORG

[bocaburger]

it can be very annoying when you shoot a 135 coded as a 50 or similar. The camera removes all this vignetting that isn't there. Very hard to replace what is removed...

 

But why would you? If the 135 is uncoded and you leave lens recognition in automatic, the code reader sees nothing and doesn't apply any corrections. If it's the only uncoded lens you have, then you'll know by default what shots were taken with it.

 

I have only lenses 35mm and below coded, keep lens recognition automatic, and it all works out fine. Admittedly I have no particular care about having the focal length in the EXIF data.

 

And yes, 135mm lenses can be tricky on the M9. An old f/4 Elmar, and even older LTM Hektor both focus spot-on with my M9. So far I've been through 2 Tele-Elmars and both misfocused. The second one I sent for calibration and it came back no better. That's when I took matters into my own hands (literally) and milled down the landing area where the optical assembly seats into the focusing mount. Now it's pin-sharp.

Edited October 24, 2011 by bocaburger

[adan]

From Leica's point of view, the 135mm focal length for the M system is a very low-volume, marginal product (at least since SLRs came along). As witnessed by the fact that they didn't bother to change (i.e. spend money on) the optical designs of the predecessor f/4 and f/2.8 135s for 30+ years - and when they finally did upgrade to the f/3.4, it was primarily a cost-SAVING measure (only one set of parts to make and store, instead of three (including the R f/2.8, which shared glass with the M version, and was eliminated about the same time).

 

So I understand why Leica simply isn't interested in bothering with coded mounts for the 135s, even for the M9. Why spend money on something very few people buy, for a marginal difference?

 

I'm going to redo this test today, as an example - but back when the M9 was introduced, I compared using my 135 on it, with and without vignette corrections (ID'ing the lens manually via the menu vs. leaving the camera on auto-detect). At that time there was a very faint difference in the corners - shots of a solid blue sky without ID'ing the lens did have slightly brighter corners - as Jacques says, correction for vignetting that wasn't there.

 

(@bocaburger - I would not assume that an uncoded lens receives "no corrections." There may be a "base" correction for microlens vignetting applied to all M9 (and M8) images - with additional corrections computed for a coded lens added/subtracted to that base. I expect mjh or someone with detailed knowledge of the firmware can clarify that.)

 

However the difference was neglible (~1-2%) in real-world shooting (and, in fact, can be "replaced" trivially easily with a slider in any raw-developing program, if desired), so I've never bothered to manually ID the lens from the menu again.

 

On the more general question - yes, IMHO, Leica is being too conservative in their "warnings" about the 135 on digital Ms. They work fine - so long as one isn't obsessive about exif data.

[Double Negative]

I can't speak of the APO, but I use the 135mm Tele-Elmar-M f/4 version on my M9 (and M8/M7) with the MP/JE 1.15x magnifier and have no problems focusing - and the results are top notch. The APO does have an edge in quality, but it's minimal. I don't quite get the fuss over using a 135mm lens with an RF. Granted, the framelines are quite small and your rangefinder needs to be within spec... But focusing shouldn't be any harder than with shorter focal lengths. I'd highly recommend the SHOOC finder; basically a 1x VF. Much easier framing.

 

I'd have to agree; the 90 and 135 lenses are among the best lenses. Really nice glass.

[swamiji]

There are two; 9-1 is for the Elmarit, and 53-2 is for the Apo-Telyt. The code point for the Tele-Elmar is 39-0 which due to the zero frameline code cannot be 6-bit-coded.

 

That is interesting as the Leica Document on 6-bit says, "The only lens in the current range that will not be given a 6-bit coding is the LEICA APO-TELYT-M 135 mm f/3.4. It is not codable later, either, as its extension factor of 1.33 makes it unsuitable for use on the planned digital M camera." and the same document only shows the code for the Elmarit.

 

Also the http://whimster-photography.com/leica_m_lens_codes/index.html site also ignores the APO-Telyt.

Edited October 25, 2011 by swamiji

[01af]

That is interesting ...

If you find this interesting then maybe you want to review the older threads elsewhere on this forum which deal with this topic.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[swamiji]

I guess I missed it as a new feature of 1.62... I just wish Leica would keep there online documentation up to date.

Edited October 25, 2011 by swamiji