wda Posted August 6, 2013 Share #21  Posted August 6, 2013 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 Willy, if you can afford both, buy both. The two lenses are among the most affordable Leica lenses. The vendor of the 135mm is quite generous to include the magnifier which is a relatively expensive item. In fact it is worth more, possibly, than the Elmar you are buying with it.  Treat the 135 as a somewhat specialist lens. I find it excellent for architectural details, animals and flying aircraft. It is also super for candid portraiture from a distance. However you will find that the 90 gets used a little more often for general photography. The Elmar is an improved version of the Hector with very similar mechanical and body features. Although I have replaced mine with the later Tele-Elmar, I cannot bring myself to part with the Elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Hi wda, Take a look here 90mm vs 135mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mr_Jones Posted August 7, 2013 Share #22 Â Posted August 7, 2013 I found the 135 useful for shooting rugby. Times when you can't get closer to the subject. Really excellent lens and easier to focus if you have enough light for a smaller aperture. I prefer the 90 macro for flowers etc as the minimum focussing distance helps to fill the frame with the subject. Â I found the 28 2.8 a useful lens for street portraits, the larger depth of field means easier zone focus and with practice you can shoot without the camera to your eye which initiates a different response from the subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 7, 2013 Share #23 Â Posted August 7, 2013 Dropped the 90 for a 135 and 75. Works great. Bought a 135 1967 vintage cost $500 appropriate for the use. Excellent lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 7, 2013 Share #24 Â Posted August 7, 2013 Willy- Sometimes lens selection can help with filter choices if you ever use a Monochrom or filters in general. That's one reason I got a 135/4.0 Tele-Elmar-M #11861, so its 46mm filter size is equal to the 50/1.4, 28/2.0, 35/1.4 FLE etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
becker Posted August 7, 2013 Share #25  Posted August 7, 2013 On a M3 the 135 is very good to use if 0,72 / 0,85 is fact I would prefere the 90 mm The 135 Elmar is a good Lense, but very seldom in use, nice to have  KR  M 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/204204-90mm-vs-135mm/?do=findComment&comment=2392632'>More sharing options...
wosim Posted August 10, 2013 Share #26 Â Posted August 10, 2013 I own the Tele-Elmarit-M 2.8 90mm and the Tele-Elmar-M 4.0 135mm, using them with a M9. The Tele-Elmar-M is an excellent lens and the Elmar 135mm only a bit behind it. It is said, that the Elmar shall have the most beautiful bokeh. Â In my opinion you should use a magnifier on a digital M when using 135mm, otherwise it's only trial and error, especially with moving subjects. Â The 135mm is my least used lens - I guess (max. 5%), followed by 90mm (10 - 15%), but this is very personal depending on the individual preferences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2013 Share #27  Posted August 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you can't make a decision between 90 or 135 mm, perhaps a Nikkor-PC 2.5 - 105 mm with Leica screw mount LTM might be the right thing. Not as great as the Elmarit 2.8 - 135 with goggles, but also with a tripod mount, which the Tele-Elmar 4.0 - 135 mm and all 90 mm ​​lenses are missing. With an adapter E39 to Leica M Mount the Nikkor fits to all M cameras. Dante Stella Nikon (Nippon Kogaku KK) RF Nikkor 105mm lenses for Nikon Rangefinder cameras - Index Page Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted August 11, 2013 Share #28 Â Posted August 11, 2013 I have an Elmarit-M and am very happy with it. Good image quality, sharp, easy to focus and good bokeh. Did try a 135 tele-elmar and found it extremely hard to get sharp pictures. Maybe its because the camera and lens need to be adjusted correctly to suit. Â Also I rarely carry a tripod which I believe the 135 requires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted August 11, 2013 Share #29 Â Posted August 11, 2013 you can always grab a Hektor 135mm lens for little money- they are a bargain. The 90 is probably more useful. For tele portraiture look for a Canon LTM 100mm f2. That is a superb lens- sharp wide open with narrow depth of field a little like a noctilux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 14, 2013 Share #30 Â Posted August 14, 2013 collapsible and rigid are the same optics. To get optics that are nearly as sharp open as closed, you need to get the most modern lenses. The are called APO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted August 15, 2013 Share #31 Â Posted August 15, 2013 I've bought one week ago a 90mm Elmar collapsible F4, now I have the opportunity to buy an Elmar 135mm F4. Â Â I'd get both. In today's market these old lenses are a terrific bargain. Â Closed down a stop or two they're very sharp. Plus it's nice not having to worry so much about banging up and devaluing new gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstop Posted October 9, 2013 Share #32  Posted October 9, 2013 I'd get both. In today's market these old lenses are a terrific bargain.  Closed down a stop or two they're very sharp. Plus it's nice not having to worry so much about banging up and devaluing new gear. 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! And at full aperture you have a nice portraiture lens! Surely a bargain. Antonio Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! And at full aperture you have a nice portraiture lens! Surely a bargain. Antonio ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/204204-90mm-vs-135mm/?do=findComment&comment=2437925'>More sharing options...
jrp Posted October 9, 2013 Share #33 Â Posted October 9, 2013 Is Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M240 with the 90mm F4 Macro Elmar - Some Observations the 90mm that is being talked about in this thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulev Posted October 9, 2013 Share #34 Â Posted October 9, 2013 Selling my 90 Elmarit for the moment, in order to buy a 75mm. Â At first, define the focus lenght will help you define your choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2013 Share #35  Posted October 9, 2013 Is Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M240 with the 90mm F4 Macro Elmar - Some Observations the 90mm that is being talked about in this thread? It's the Elmar 90/4 # 11631. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/204204-90mm-vs-135mm/?do=findComment&comment=2438150'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.