ELMAR 135mm f/4

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mine was soft and focus was off (M9)

 

got a tele-elmarit - wow! (luck?)

 

 

Yes, luck. I went through two T-E's trying to find one that was spot on but both of them were off. Sent the 2nd one in for recalibration, came back still off. That's when I took matters into my own hands (literally) and fixed it. It was quite a job. First I determined by trial that the optical cell needed to sit closer to the focal plane, and marked and measured how much. Then I removed the cell and shaved down the part where it butts against the helicoid by the predetermined amount, little by little and evenly all around using a caliper and a flat disk on a Dreml-type tool. That left the aperture and focus index off center so I had to partially disassemble and reorient it. Not a pleasant job but once accomplished it's spot-on focus. Irdk why the repair tech couldn't have done it.

 

OTOH my Elmar which I've had for ages was spot on to begin with, as was my LTM Hektor with Leitz M adaptor. So definitely it's a matter of luck.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mike,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

One way to check to see if the issue is focus is:

 

Put the camera on a rigid tripod.

 

Put a measuring stick on the floor about 3 meters in front of the camera. Point the measuring stick away from the lens.

 

Determine the correct exposure at the largest aperture..

 

Focus on the middle number. Release the shutter. Refocus on the same number & release the shutter again a number of times.

 

After 5 or 6 test focus & firings look at the test photos.

 

Is the number you focussed on the sharpest part of the image in each photo. Is the range of sharpness about the same on either side of that middle number. Sometimes when things are properly focussed there might be a little more in focus on the far side of the plane of focus.

 

If the plane of focus (sharpest number) is not the number you focussed on then you might have a lens which is not calibrated correctly OR your focussing technique might need improving.

 

Also: Some lenses of certain focal lengths have some degree of focal shift which occurs at different focussing distances, at different apertures. I have never read about this being a problem with the 135mm Elmar F4.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[bocaburger]

To calibrate my 135 I printed out a page, drew vertical and horizontal lines (crosshatch) and taped it to a wall. Crosshatch was used to ascertain focus with the rangefinder. Camera on tripod w/macro focusing rail, lens set at close focus distance, aperture wide open.

 

Of course this all presumes the rangefinder itself is known to be 100% on-spec.

[epand56]

Mike, I bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 years ago and still got it. It is more recent than the model you bought (1965-1990), but at the time of my purchase, I couldn't focus the lens at all because a lot of time was passed since the last time the previous owner used it. It was kind of dried (you should see a sort of long tab inside the lens, it was sort of blocked). I had to send it for CLA to an expert in Bologna and a week later my lens was back home and perfectly working. This lens is amazing; when nailed, sharpness is breathtaking. The real problem when shooting this long lens, in my opinion, is blur, more than the lack of focus. As you can see in these couple pictures attached, it is a great performer.

 

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!

 

[MikeSR]

If the plane of focus (sharpest number) is not the number you focussed on then you might have a lens which is not calibrated correctly OR your focussing technique might need improving.

 

Also: Some lenses of certain focal lengths have some degree of focal shift which occurs at different focussing distances, at different apertures. I have never read about this being a problem with the 135mm Elmar F4.

 

Thanks Michael, I have tried something very close to that and have found that my focusing technique is wanting! But with a magnifier on the camera, a tripod, a lot of breath holding etc. I can get fairly consistent and in-focus results. The lens appears to be as near perfect as I can judge.

 

There certainly does not appear to be any focal shift at close range (my 50mm lens has about 5mm of focal shift wide open at minimum range but the DoF isn't as paper thin as the 135).

 

Mike, I bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 years ago and still got it. It is more recent than the model you bought (1965-1990), but at the time of my purchase, I couldn't focus the lens at all because a lot of time was passed since the last time the previous owner used it. It was kind of dried (you should see a sort of long tab inside the lens, it was sort of blocked). I had to send it for CLA to an expert in Bologna and a week later my lens was back home and perfectly working. This lens is amazing; when nailed, sharpness is breathtaking. The real problem when shooting this long lens, in my opinion, is blur, more than the lack of focus. As you can see in these couple pictures attached, it is a great performer.

 

Those photographs are amazing and I'm finding that my test shots are starting to show some real promise. As you said though, holding the thing still enough is a major challenge! A lot of bracing, holding my breath and 2s timer seems to be the only combination that gives any hope in anything other than bright sunlight. Also amusing that while my sensor was being changed, earlier this week, I was irritated not to be able to get a very similar shot of a digger with the same tool on the arm.

 

All your input greatly appreciated, thank you! I'm pretty happy that the failings were mine and the lens is as good as I could hope for (ignoring the ridiculous price).

[250swb]

As you said though, holding the thing still enough is a major challenge! A lot of bracing, holding my breath and 2s timer seems to be the only combination that gives any hope in anything other than bright sunlight.

 

Don't treat it as a test and get obsessed with critical focus, a good photograph is still a good photograph even if it is a bit soft. Sharpen carefully, and add some simulated grain in post processing to fool the eye into thinking the image is sharper than it is if necessary. But if absolute sharpness was necessary half the famous photographs of the 20th century would be consigned to the bin.

 

Steve

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve is perfectly right. I've just got a big book about Paris photographed during the last 80 years by the Magnum photographers. A breathtaking book that I studied with attention. Well, 90% of the pictures, very famous picture taken by great photographers shch as Cartier-Bresson, to name one, were not in focus. But They were outstanding pictures as well.

[MikeSR]

Hmmm... thoughts really appreciated. I suppose my photographs aren't and were never intended to be studio shots. I'm probably getting a bit too hooked on modern technology and the ability to look at the smallest detail at 400% magnification! I'm not really that bad but you know what I mean

 

On reflection, when I put shots on my blog I am a lot less exacting. I shall see if I can keep that in mind...

 

Funnily, looking at some of my childhood family photographs they are consistent in their point of focus rarely being the subject of the photograph!

 

The only thing with this lens is that if I want paper-thin depth of field and perfect focus, it appears that I can get it, so long as I have a tripod and my subject is carrying sufficient extra pounds so as to not starve while I'm trying to get it right (or is carrying a sandwich or two and can eat without moving).