philipus Posted February 27, 2013 Share #1 Posted February 27, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am considering a new 135mm lens. I have a 1938 Hektor 13,5cm in good condition which is nice but which I find 1) rather long and unwieldy and 2) a bit soft. So I'm considering the 135 Tele-Elmar and have found excellent information in the archives. I'm quite impressed how well it performs in comparison to the Asph Apo-Telyt. But one thing I can't find information on is how the Tele-Elmar handles flare if a hood isn't used (or retracted as the case may be). I'd very much appreciate help from those of you with real-world experience of this lens. Thanks very much in advance Philip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Hi philipus, Take a look here 135mm Tele-Elmar flare question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bill W Posted February 27, 2013 Share #2 Posted February 27, 2013 I am just curious why you would not use the retractible hood? Almost any lens can incurr flare under the right circumstances. Are you attaching a filter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share #3 Posted February 27, 2013 Hi Bill I'm actually only considering the earlier versions because the one with the built-in hood (-M) is optically the same and costs a lot more. I included reference to the -M for completeness sake in case other people search for the same info. Cheers Philip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted February 27, 2013 Share #4 Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Philip, I have a v2 (ie, with collapsible hood). I have yet to see this lens flare - but then (a) it's not my most used lens and ( I'm always extending the hood as a matter of normal practice. If it helps (and, more importantly, if we have a sunny day...), I can do a quick test tomorrow. It's a very sharp lens, with pleasing bokeh and great color rendition (to my eyes, at least). Saw your reply to Bill in the meantime. Yes - they should be optically the same. Edited February 27, 2013 by Ecar 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted February 27, 2013 Share #5 Posted February 27, 2013 I used to have the earlier one (I think mine was from 1970), I used the hood (same hood used with the modern Macro Elmar 90) most of the time but sometimes without. I don't recall ever seeing flare on any shot--hood or not. It's leap and bounds ahead of the Hektor in terms of "sharpness", contrast, and color rendition. It is also long and unwieldy; though anything over a 90mm is going to feel that way on a Leica if you don't use it that often Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share #6 Posted February 27, 2013 Hi Ecar Thanks for the information. If there is sun tomorrow (I cross my fingers that we'll have some here in NL too) and you have the time I'd be very interested to see how the lens reacts when "provoked". Best Philip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted February 28, 2013 Share #7 Posted February 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unfortunately, the sky is hopelessly grey in Geneva today. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.