Jump to content

135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt-M user feedback & recommendation?


yst

Recommended Posts

The 135 APO-Telyt is one of Leica's best of the best.

 

It is my preferred long lens for motorsports with the M.

 

5836486844_98516ba4a0_z.jpg

BMW Motorsport - BMW M3 GT - 2011 Le Mans 24h by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

5835921237_3e7f748537_z.jpg

Signatech Nissan - Oreca 03-Nissan - 2011 Le Mans 24h by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

…very compact too - easily the best 135mm in handling and ergonomics - best used on a M3 ;-)

 

6362172397_93b6298eb7_z.jpg

M8.2 + Hexanon 21-35 and M3 + 135 APO-Telyt by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Last race, I shot with a Canon 100/2 LTM - also a very fine lens, but nowhere near the optical perfection of the APO-Telyt.

 

I shoot the APO mostly on a M8.2 and M9, mixed with and without a 1.4x magnifier.

In some situations, I like the help for composition of the magnifier, but generally, it doesn't really improve focussing for the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

If you prefer modern lenses with the perfectly corrected, sharp and contrasty look, the APO is for you.

If you don't like or demand that look, look elsewhere, save a lot of money and grab a 135/4 or other lens.

The most interesting feature of the APO is indeed, how good it is already form wide open on - at infinity and close focus - it's an impressive lens. It is not easy to use though - RF must be adjusted to perfection and your vision should be sufficient to support the lens.

 

Btw, I found, that it is very helpful to filter from opinions and comments about the 135mm focal length from people, who actually use a lot or even preferred such long lenses on a M and from people who tried it once or use it irregularly on a tripod @ infinity.

 

Handheld shooting a 135mm lens on a M is different from doing so on a SLR and therefore most rangefinder shooters find themselves not exactly comfortable with these lenses.

A very big part of negative comments about this long focal length and even about the APO-Telyt in particular stems from that point.

Users, who bought a APO and kept it instead of moving it on usually know that everyone should have one ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnifier focussing - I notice it is rejected by the more mature users. There is an explanation here I think. Starting out with rangefinders, one will rely on coincidence focussing. A magnifier will make the coincidence process more visible. However, over the years the more precise contrast focussing takes over - and magnifiers reduce contrast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnifier focussing - I notice it is rejected by the more mature users. There is an explanation here I think. Starting out with rangefinders, one will rely on coincidence focussing. A magnifier will make the coincidence process more visible. However, over the years the more precise contrast focussing takes over - and magnifiers reduce contrast.

 

I think that's true, but I wasn't that old when I first used a 1.125x magnifier and saw right away the loss of contrast cancelled out the increase in magnification when it came to focusing. Compare an M9+1.25x with one of the 0.85x film bodies and the loss of contrast with the former is immediately apparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure the glass surfaces of both the camera's eye-piece and the magnifier are meticulously clean when attaching the latter to the former, and the loss of contrast will be negligible.
This is what I'm thinking. In theory I can understand there should be at least some degree of loss of contrast with the extra glass. However, in practice it's not been noticeable to me. Again, this is with the Leica x1.4.

A side note to the x1.4 is that you can keep both eyes open (similar to the M3) when framing. This also helps composition as it gets less squinty.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you like your Hexanon, Dirk?

 

I absolutely love it!

I am switching between the 21 Super Elmar, 21 f2.8 Avenon Millennium and the Hexanon Dual 21-35 depending on mood.

 

The Super Elmar is by a very small margin optically the best, but really only fits to the very latest, high contrast lenses, limiting it's use unfortunately.

 

The Hexanon is not far off in performance (really a landmark lens), but it is much more pleasing in rendition and contrast (+offers a safety 35mm setting at one click of a ring).

 

The 21 Avenon really is a classic perfect pairing to pre ASPH lenses, as a 35 pre ASPH Summilux and alike.

 

Generally, I prefer the Hexanon from it's rendering.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

find it easier to focus without any magnifier and have tried both. 1.25 is a bit better as you lose less contrast. I bought the Ricoh GXR with M module basically to use with this lens (though I also use it a lot with the CV 35 1.2) It is a joy to use on this little camera as long as you use the EVF and focussing is a easy even wide open when using the focus assist (option 2) and also becomes a 200mm equivalent lens. IQ is fantastic though of course not on a par with the M9

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I'm thinking. In theory I can understand there should be at least some degree of loss of contrast with the extra glass. However, in practice it's not been noticeable to me. Again, this is with the Leica x1.4.

A side note to the x1.4 is that you can keep both eyes open (similar to the M3) when framing. This also helps composition as it gets less squinty.

 

Another thing is unless you're shooting for an extended time with a longer lens, or carry two bodies, I find it a real PITA to keep installing and removing the magnifier (with it in place you can't see the 35mm framelines, or even the 50 if you wear glasses). Worse if you use a diopter, as it must be removed from the camera and reinstalled on the magnifier and vice-versa. It's too bad they couldn't make one on a hinge like Hasselblad did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing is unless you're shooting for an extended time with a longer lens, or carry two bodies, I find it a real PITA to keep installing and removing the magnifier (with it in place you can't see the 35mm framelines, or even the 50 if you wear glasses). Worse if you use a diopter, as it must be removed from the camera and reinstalled on the magnifier and vice-versa. It's too bad they couldn't make one on a hinge like Hasselblad did.

 

This is a very important point, to consider (and partly one of the reasons, why I always shoot with two bodies - one wide, one normal or longer)!

 

To the people, who feel GAS now regarding the 135 APO.

You might want to do one thing - try out the 135mm focal length with either a very affordable 135mm (there are many made, like the LTM lenses from Nikon or Canon, which can be had generally around 100 − 200 USD in nice condition).

 

You also should really calculate, that you will very likely send your new/ second hand APO-Telyt in for proper adjustment to Leica.

It is not uncommon, that this lens is mis-aligned to the typical digital M body, as most of these lenses on the market today - new or second hand are made before Leica started to refine tolerances for critical use on digital bodies.

 

These lenses might be perfectly fine on a film body with the limitations, Leica themselves recommend (stopping the lens down, when shooting :confused:) - they are unusable though, when critical focus wide open is wanted on a digital M.

 

Don't get frustrated with a lens, not properly adjusted and think, it is the APO-Telyt, that causes trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing is unless you're shooting for an extended time with a longer lens, or carry two bodies, I find it a real PITA to keep installing and removing the magnifier (with it in place you can't see the 35mm framelines, or even the 50 if you wear glasses). Worse if you use a diopter, as it must be removed from the camera and reinstalled on the magnifier and vice-versa. It's too bad they couldn't make one on a hinge like Hasselblad did.

re PITA I fully agree - I had the same experience. However, once I made sure that my diopter correction was right I felt no need for the magnifier. My experience with the M9 + 135 A-T is that stability and shutter speed are as critical as anything. If you want to use it for distant objects, a tripod of at least monopod can make all the difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

These lenses might be perfectly fine on a film body with the limitations, Leica themselves recommend (stopping the lens down, when shooting :confused:) - they are unusable though, when critical focus wide open is wanted on a digital M.

 

Sorry, this is absolutely not the case

 

 

 

 

 

.

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!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...