90mm vs 135mm

[Willy Fog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!!

 

I've bought one week ago a 90mm Elmar collapsible F4, now I have the opportunity to buy an Elmar 135mm F4. Both looks perfect, the 135m include the hood.

 

The price is nearly the same, I never used before a 90mm or 135mm, only the 35mm. Which do you think will be better? I just want a perfect couple for my 35mm.

 

Thank you for your help

 

Best regards

[Guest tanks]

I'd say you'll have more occasions to use the 90. For years I had the 35 and the 90 as my kit.

[Willy Fog]

I'd say you'll have more occasions to use the 90. For years I had the 35 and the 90 as my kit.

 

Thank you for your comment.

 

It make me thinks the quality of the images, some people say that the 90mm collapsible is quite soft, and the Elmar 135mm f4 is an amazing lens!

 

I'm not profesional, I just want to have one more lens (90mm or 135mm) to make easy take some portraits photos in the street without the need of face the person with the 35mm

 

Best regards

[elgenper]

Which camera body do you use? An 135 lens is rather difficult to focus on most of them (the M3 is probably still the most suitable one), which would slow you down considerably, and also lower your success rate when ´taking portraits in the street without the need to face the person´....

 

I´d say, the best solution for this is still to get used to ´facing´ your subjects with a 35 or 50 lens, instead of trying to stay invisible with an awkwardly long lens. At least, try your new 90 first! If some people say it´s soft, you´ll find even more people saying it´s OK. You own the lens; find out for yourself!

 

Btw, I own a very good copy of the 135 Elmar, and I hardly ever use it on the street. It´s for flowers and the like, preferrably on a Visoflex.

[Willy Fog]

Which camera body do you use? An 135 lens is rather difficult to focus on most of them (the M3 is probably still the most suitable one), which would slow you down considerably, and also lower your success rate when ´taking portraits in the street without the need to face the person´....

 

I´d say, the best solution for this is still to get used to ´facing´ your subjects with a 35 or 50 lens, instead of trying to stay invisible with an awkwardly long lens. At least, try your new 90 first! If some people say it´s soft, you´ll find even more people saying it´s OK. You own the lens; find out for yourself!

 

Btw, I own a very good copy of the 135 Elmar, and I hardly ever use it on the street. It´s for flowers and the like, preferrably on a Visoflex.

 

Thank you for your message

 

I use a Leica M6ttl. The seller of the 135mm told me that also with the lens will give me a magnifier 1.25x for Leica.

 

I think I'll do as you said:

 

1- Try to face the people with the 35mm

2- Use the 90mm collapsible and decide by myself.

 

I think will be easy to find another 135mm in the market if I find that the 90mm Is not for me.

 

Thank you very much for your help

 

Best regards

[Einst_Stein]

Thank you for your comment.

 

It make me thinks the quality of the images, some people say that the 90mm collapsible is quite soft, and the Elmar 135mm f4 is an amazing lens!

 

I'm not profesional, I just want to have one more lens (90mm or 135mm) to make easy take some portraits photos in the street without the need of face the person with the 35mm

 

Best regards

 

Nothing in Leica M can be quite soft, not even compared to any other Leica M. Whoever made that comment should always go back to sharpen his focuing skill.

 

Don't be tempted by any lens review. Stick with the right lens before looking fir the best lens. Unless you've developed a shooting preference towards the tele-end, which many of my freids does, I would suggest 90mm before 135mm.

 

I assume you have. ff Leica, you can use the frame switch to see which forcal lens fits better with you. Try this when you take every picture with your current 35mm lens.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...some people say that the 90mm collapsible is quite soft...

They have never used it then or they have RF issues. The Elmar 90/4 collapsible (# 11631) is rather soft at f/4 but it is a sharp lens at f/5.6 and on. Better refrain from shooting against light sources though as it is prone to flare.

[algrove]

Get into using your 90 well before venturing into another long lens, would be my only comment.

[sblitz]

Had both kept an old tele elmar 135 and use a 1.25 magnifier to focus on my m9 and m4. Have a 75 which is great for portraits but when I wanted a longer lens I wanted something longer and the 135 fit the bill

[Printmaker]

I have both a 90 Elmarit M and a 135 Elmarit (which I call "Big Ugly"). While the 135 can be useful, I find that I use the 90 far more often. As it was mentioned before, the 35/90 is a perfect minimalist kit.

[CaptZoom]

I was going to suggest the 90mm, but if your getting a magnifier with the 135mm ( it gets difficult composing without one) than I suggest get the focal length that you most need/want. Keep in mind that you can crop/enlarge a properly focused 90mm lens and get similar (though obviously not the same) results as a 135mm, but you can't expand the 135mm to 90mm.

[aragdog]

Just about every 90 made is so great for portraits and people. Almost every single one was and is great.

[jdlaing]

I find the 90 easier to hand hold than the 135.

[philipus]

Willy, it's this Elmar, right?

I don't have this lens, but I have a Hektor 13,5cm which I find easy to focus on my TTL (without magnifier), even at 15-20m.

 

I also have a 90mm (the Elmarit-M) and if I were to pick one focal length over the other it would be the 90 even though in the situation you describe - to capture portraits from a distance - the 135mm would reach a little longer. The 135mm framelines on the 0.72x VF are quite small (and the framelines are also a bit inaccurate) so I have found it difficult to visualise what will be in the photo. The 90mm framelines are big enough to be able to form an impression of what the photo will show. And one can reach quite far also with a 90mm. A 90 will pair nicely with a 35mm as an excellent and versatile lens setup.

 

That said, the Elmar will be a swell performer. I considered upgrading to it from my Hektor but since I don't use this focal length very often I have stuck with the Hektor (and like that it is in its 8th decade of service).

 

Cheers

Philip

[iphoenix]

At least for the moment I'd stick with the 90, but I'd make sure a hood was always on it. I have no problem at all with my collapsible (s/no. 1138046) 90's sharpness, but feel contrast is improved by the hood. Get used to the 90 first then, if you feel the need, get a 135. There is always a good selection available.

[david strachan]

I'm using both lenses particularly for closest focusing. And use flash...a fully variable down to 128th of the light. Flash is a Yongnuo YN 560II

 

Both lenses are very sharp...which one really comes to appreciate with flash.

 

I like using close up on the 90mm f4 (not collapsible) and it focuses to 1m. The 135mm focuses to 1.5 mm (it's a Hektor 135mm f4). Closest focusing gives me a very slightly bigger image than the closest focusing 1m on the 90mm f4.

 

The 90mm lens head I use in my Visoflex and bellows II...get infinity focus to 1:1 macro.

 

both are really beaut lenses and cost little on the markets. Great for flowers, other close ups etc.

 

cheers Dave S

[A miller]

Both 90 and 135 are challenging for street photography, as the DOF is generally very shallow and you need a lot of light. But in my view the 90 is the better focal length for this type of shooting.

 

I have both lengths (90/F2 and 135/F4) and use the 90 more. I take it out in the streets sometimes when I want to get a closer view.

 

I snatched my 135 Tele-Elmar on ebay for $161 with perfect glass (although the barrel is beat up). At this price, it was almost compulsory for me to get ( ). It's fun to use the 135 on occasion; there are just fewer of them for me.

[Tonki-M]

35-90 is my go-to kit when i want to travel light. 90mm is easier to use that the 135, but performance wise, both are exceptional!

[MMercier]

WillyFog,

I fortunately have both, an older Canadian 90 summicron and the 135 f3.4 APO. I was recently packing for a California trip and puzzling which to bring. I shoot an M6 (.85). I decided on the 135 and was glad I did. It certainly is lighter than my 90, but that was not what made me glad. The rock vistas and seals I found to shoot could not have been reached as well with the 90. I shoot mostly handheld, but will use a tripod if I can. I have used 300 and 400mm lenses handheld in newspaper work for years (college football primarily). This was using SLR's of course. I shot close to wide open in California at fast shutter speed because DOF was not important in my shots. So the long & short is this...I would never surrender my 90 for portraits. For travel, the 135 hands down. That advice is worth what you paid for it ; )

 

Mike

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[shortstop]

Is there any difference in the images taken by the two elmar 90/4 (collapsible and rigid)?

I've read that the elmar 90/4 is soft wide open and sharp from 5,6 on. Is'n it a good thing? We can use it at f:4 for portraits and fron 5,6 for street photography (we need anyway a diaphragm a bit closer for a bigger DOF).

I've a summicron 50 and a nice skopar 28/3,5. My mp is a 0,58x. Therefore 135 is fordidden.

I'm fascinated also by images I've seen taken with hektor 73, but... Too expensive.