135mm question

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody

 

I have a 13,5cm/4.5 Hektor (1938) LTM, which I recently used quite a bit on my M6 for a project about surfers (here). I found the picture quality good enough. Though the lens is not super-sharp, most images I selected were decently sharp because they were shot at small apertures (the images are crops as well because I was usually 100-200 metres away).

 

I understand the 135mm f/3.4 ASPH Apo-Telyt-M is the current top dog but it is out of my budget.

 

Would I be right in assuming that, in terms of image quality, the Tele-Elmar is the next one in line from the Apo-Telyt?

 

The Tele-Elmar seems really interesting and can be had cheaply. But is it the same optical formula in all three versions? If so, why is the latest version - the Tele-Elmar M (11 861) - much more expensive than the tapered versions? Does the look of a more modern lens add to the price?

 

As I understand it, the M mount versions of the Hektor (HEFAR/11135) and the Elmar 135/4 are the same optically as their LTM relatives. But how do the Hektor and the Elmar compare IQ-wise?

 

The Elmarit-M is too big for my taste, but I would perhaps consider it if the image quality is a lot better than the other options.

 

Cheers and many thanks in advance for your advice

Philip

[Advertisement]

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

[bill]

Philip, I had a Tele-Elmar M from new when they were just discontinued. It is a superb lens but one I used infrequently so let go a few years later. Subsequent to that, to scratch an itch, I bought a late model (black) Canon 135mm 3.5 in LTM. Apart from an odd filter size and rotating front element I was very pleased with it. It is considerably lighter than the Tele-Elmar but still built like a tank. Well worth a look - if you can find one!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

The Tele Elmar is a superb lens and really rivals the Apo-Telyt when stopped down. The price difference is indeed the less modern barrel. Optically the versions are identical.

[xalo]

Hi Philip,

 

All I ever heard about the Tele-Elmar is that the optical formula remained the same until the last pre-apo production line, same for the optical quality - perhaps there were changes in coating though (and lens condition due to age).

 

I have an older one, clean and adjusted, which I really like for it's images and versatility. The lenshead unscrews and can be adapted to visoflex, bellows (just like the Hektor, I think, but quite a bit sharper) or SLR's. I used it for aerial photography for instance, on a Canon 5D (see here - sorry for the green tint, it's not the lens...)

Btw, perhaps the focus throw of the lenses has also changed between the versions, and sometimes my older one seems no too precise at close focus. Still, I really like my tapered one - excellent value.

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

[jaapv]

Better use a permalink, Alexander. Easier to find the post:

 

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/207425-barnacks-monthly-november-lines-3.html#post1888681

[philipus]

Thanks very much for the incredibly quick replies.

 

Originally Posted by xalo

The lenshead unscrews and can be adapted to visoflex, bellows (just like the Hektor, I think, but quite a bit sharper) or SLR's. I used it for aerial photography for instance, on a Canon 5D (see here - sorry for the green tint, it's not the lens...) Btw, perhaps the focus throw of the lenses has also changed between the versions, and sometimes my older one seems no too precise at close focus. Still, I really like my tapered one - excellent value.

 

Thanks for the tips Alexander. The image is very sharp indeed! You wrote in your image post that you use "head plus short mount and adapter". The adapter is an M-EOS adapter, I guess, but what's the "short mount"? I have a 5D2 and it would be cool to use the lens with that camera, too.

 

Do the earlier versions of the Tele-Elmar have click-stops on the aperture ring? And is the focus throw the same on the two first versions?

 

Originally Posted by bill

I bought a late model (black) Canon 135mm 3.5 in LTM. Apart from an odd filter size and rotating front element I was very pleased with it. It is considerably lighter than the Tele-Elmar but still built like a tank.

 

Thank you Bill. Is this the "Serenar"? I've seen a few on eBay but they're of a very silverish chrome. But perhaps it exists in black, too.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody

 

I have a 13,5cm/4.5 Hektor (1938) LTM....,

 

The Tele-Elmar seems really interesting and can be had cheaply. But is it the same optical formula in all three versions? If so, why is the latest version - the Tele-Elmar M (11 861) - much more expensive than the tapered versions? Does the look of a more modern lens add to the price?

 

As I understand it, the M mount versions of the Hektor (HEFAR/11135) and the Elmar 135/4 are the same optically as their LTM relatives. But how do the Hektor and the Elmar compare IQ-wise?

 

The Elmarit-M is too big for my taste, but I would perhaps consider it if the image quality is a lot better than the other options.

 

Cheers and many thanks in advance for your advice

Philip

 

- As already said, YES, the Tele Elmars are all optically identical... the latest one is much more uncommon so typically costs more.. but has one single plus (bulit-in hood) AND also a minus (not removable lenshead for Visoflex usage)

 

- Hektor and "non tele" Elmars are indeed different designs... I have (and used) both: the Elmar , compared to a postwar coated Hektor, isn't so different, but undoubtly sharper around 4 (4,5) to 8.

 

- The Tele Elmarit is fine in handling but one has to love the "spectacles"... which have plus (enlarged frame) and minus (loss of clarity); its last version (above 2.8xx.xxx, around) is very good... comparable to the TE... the real hassle is to CARRY it (no little pouch...) : imho, when mounted is a very well balanced combo.

 

In conclusion... you can't go wrong with a good Tele Elmar... ... and luckily they are also not difficult to find. <added> : it has click stops, and the focus throw remained unchanged

[jaapv]

That is the focussing adapter OTZFO which turns the lens into a Visoflex lens. With an R-Viso adapter and EOS-R adapter you can mount the lenshead onto an EOS camera.

 

Yes, the aperture has clickstops and the focusthrow is similar.

[xalo]

Thanks, Jaap, for the tip on the permalink (will try next time) and for jumping in on the adapters.

Philip, yes, I used this solution. A good OTZFO can be quite quite costly (>EUR 100) and I have a cheaper, not-so-smooth one, but can also use it with my old Elmarit 90. One caveat, the stacked adapters with the Elmar head look a bit 'Frankensteinish' - or Alien jumping out of the Eos... the quite long head does not screw in flush with the mount (the 90 does) and sticks out a bit.

 

Alexander

[wda]

Philip, I have the 135 Elmar and have just found a mint early 135 Tele-Elmar. I used the former mainly for ground to air aircraft photography and animals. It lacks the clarity of current Leica lenses but gives a lovely rendering for portraits. The TE is clearly a better lens optically, giving highly satisfactory results which hold their place in modern company! I enjoy using both lenses and am reluctant to part with the Elmar, despite it being in chrome finish and essentially surplus to requirements. For its age, the focusing is still beautifully smooth and precise. But the TE will be my main choice in this focal length. For limited use, I cannot justify going for the current Apo, desirable though it is.

[bocaburger]

I have all three, Hektor (late, LTM), Elmar (M mount) and Tele-Elmar (later e39 version). Stopped down to f/8 or 11 there is hardly any discernible difference between any of them, and all are excellent.

 

At one time I had the APO-Telyt, and even at f/4 I had to really use my imagination to see a difference compared with the Tele Elmar. Subsequently I sold the APO (of course, who knew Leica would so grossly inflate the prices, or I would've kept it and sold it now).

 

I did run into an issue once I got my M9 however. The older Elmar was looking much sharper than the Tele-Elmar, and as I suspected, the former was by coincidence properly calibrated for the M9, and the latter was not. Unfortunately, the error was in the direction where I couldn't simply shim the lens head, I needed to mill it down, and then re-set the barrel so the focus and aperture indices lined up again. Now it is spot-on. So whatever 135 you choose, be certain to test it on your M9 to be sure it focuses sharply. Adjustment is not easy. I sent mine to a famous repair guy and the lens came back the same as it had been, which is why I ended up having to perform my own surgery on it.