Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as I know, taking photo's with a 135mm and a M9 is a "no can do" for some.

 

It would please me very much, if there are people who can show me some results, that are well focussed and tell me their experiences with the 135mm on an M9.

 

Thanks for contributing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question prompted me to step out in the cold and grab a few shots with my ancient 135mm Elmar, at 5.6.

 

These are 100% crops.

 

I had a bit of trouble when I first bought the lens, but just a little practice and it's easy.

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 MikeEvangelist
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My tilanxias on a sunny summer day. A test shot with M8 + Hektor 135 LTM

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you look for the Ferrari picture in the technology section of photos you will find a shot of mine with a tele elmar135 1965 vintage and my m9. It is hard to focus but worth the effort IMHO. I paid 500 odd dollars for it and it was worth the money. Spending top dollar is another story given difficulty to focus and time you use it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of the following on a M9

 

Elmar-M 1:4/135

 

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!

 

Elmarit-M 1:2.8/135

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't seem to have the focusing issues that others have with the 135mm on the M9. I have the current 135 APO and it's wonderful. My lens does exhibit gear lash (i.e.: I get different focusing accuracy depending on which direction I turn the focus ring. This is for both M9 bodies I own). But if I focus from infinity I get 95% perfectly accurate focused images. I have a 1.4x magnifier, but it doesn't make any real world difference to me.

 

8327407454_62500b59a7_c.jpg

141-k&j_by_FlashGordonPhotography.jpg by Flash Gordon Photography, on Flickr

 

8327406046_9ae8070dbf_c.jpg

135-k&j_by_FlashGordonPhotography.jpg by Flash Gordon Photography, on Flickr

 

Gordon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget to consider the 135mm f2.8 with goggles. it's a mandler design, unfortunately a bit heavy but good results.

 

rick

I have been curious about the goggles version of the 135. There are several versions of it I think. The big issue would be a place in your camera bag when not in use. Any thoughts on which one, a later version or older?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi bill

 

i found only two versions in the list of M lenses on the Puts site:

 

List M lenses

 

i had the earlier one, which used series 7 filters and had a removable head for use in the visoflex system. the second series was built from 76 to 96 and used E55 filters.

 

quality differences between the two? maybe there's a thread on the differences. i found v. 1 to be usefully sharp and contrasty. i waited for the right price, and had budget left over to get the goggles alignment touched up after i received the lens.

 

this thread is an all-round good read on the mandler-designed lenses: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses-4.html i believe the tele-elmar 135 is mentioned favorably.

 

good luck with your quest

 

rick

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi bill

 

i found only two versions in the list of M lenses on the Puts site:

 

List M lenses

 

i had the earlier one, which used series 7 filters and had a removable head for use in the visoflex system. the second series was built from 76 to 96 and used E55 filters.

 

quality differences between the two? maybe there's a thread on the differences. i found v. 1 to be usefully sharp and contrasty. i waited for the right price, and had budget left over to get the goggles alignment touched up after i received the lens.

 

this thread is an all-round good read on the mandler-designed lenses: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses-4.html i believe the tele-elmar 135 is mentioned favorably.

 

good luck with your quest

 

rick

Thanks,

The one that I looked at on ebay was the later version. I might try to see if I can find one to try before I buy. I actuall had a 135 f4 that was just prior to the current model. I sold it because I could not see that well to focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a wonderful 135mm today. It looks as if it's a new one!! From 1966....

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulus, great! I wish you many wonderful shots with your new lens!

 

I have two 135mm M lenses a 1961 vers. 135mm f4 Elmar and a much newer 135m f3.4 Apo Telyt.

 

With a little practice, they're not difficult to focus. I normally try and shoot at about f5.6 to make up with some depth of field for possible mis-focus.

All the images below are shot in the wild:

 

M8 & M9 with 135m f3.4 Apo Telyt

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!

 

 

 

M8 & 135mm f4 Elmar (1961 model)

 

All the best for the New Year to all!

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

The one that I looked at on ebay was the later version. I might try to see if I can find one to try before I buy. I actuall had a 135 f4 that was just prior to the current model. I sold it because I could not see that well to focus.

 

Bill,

 

if I'm allowed, the goggled 135 is a lens you should not buy before trying.

It might be affected by two major inconveniences, namely inner lenses detachment and misaligned goggles.

Detachment occurs as the balsam cementing together two lenses deteriorates and the lenses detach however being held in place by the barrel. Usually detectable because looking inside the lens you see something like a rainbow.

The goggles are prone to go off alignment further to bumping them and as far as I know they cannot be fixed. Beware!

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're quite right, bruno. trying lenses first, especially goggled ones, is a good idea.

 

considering the 135 f2.8, the first two items i would consider would be:

 

- do i like looking through goggles to view and focus? there is a bit of a tunnel effect (worse with glasses?) but this may be outweighed by the benefits of 90mm field-of-view and focusing

 

- do i / will i use a fast 135 enough to justify carrying the weight?

 

if the answer to both is no, then maybe (MAYBE) a $50-75 hektor 135 is a better tool for a few telephoto shots per month for some users.

 

re detachment of lens elements and alignment, i know for sure that kamera service in the netherlands (search also for will van manen) does this type of work, with good results. there will certainly be others.

 

all the best for 2013

 

rick

 

Bill,

 

if I'm allowed, the goggled 135 is a lens you should not buy before trying.

It might be affected by two major inconveniences, namely inner lenses detachment and misaligned goggles.

Detachment occurs as the balsam cementing together two lenses deteriorates and the lenses detach however being held in place by the barrel. Usually detectable because looking inside the lens you see something like a rainbow.

The goggles are prone to go off alignment further to bumping them and as far as I know they cannot be fixed. Beware!

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most barganiest of bargain Lecia lenses there is. Mine was £250 used. It's the ugly duckling of Leica lenses isn't it? due simply to not being popular, rather than not performing well.

 

I really like it regardless. It's a great landscape lens. Here's a few shots.

 

Strandhill, Sligo. Christmas Day 2010

5307032214_3a2bc7a2e6.jpg

 

Strandhill, Sligo. Christmas Day 2010

5306438765_5584e83b90.jpg

 

Tenerife, Christmas 2012

8305011013_dde7e59444.jpg

 

Clay Pigeon Shoot

4645215468_61250252cd.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

if I'm allowed, the goggled 135 is a lens you should not buy before trying.

It might be affected by two major inconveniences, namely inner lenses detachment and misaligned goggles.

Detachment occurs as the balsam cementing together two lenses deteriorates and the lenses detach however being held in place by the barrel. Usually detectable because looking inside the lens you see something like a rainbow.

The goggles are prone to go off alignment further to bumping them and as far as I know they cannot be fixed. Beware!

 

Cheers,

Bruno

Thanks Bruno,

These are things I have read and heard. The one really big thing is that to pack around a goggled lens would be a real pain. I will probably save up and get the current model which is now coded I believe. Have a great new year.

  • Like 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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