135mm on M (240)?

[vladik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, please help me to decide, I am considering a 135 mm lens for my Leica M 240. This lens would be used occasionally for landscape and nature photography mainly. Now I have read lots of articles on 135 lenses on the Internet and that is where it gets more confusing. Leica APO-TELYT-M 3.4/135 is obviously the best of the bunch, but the fact that the lens will be used only occasionally and its cost is out of contention. Next would be a Leica Tele Elmar 4.0/135 E46 that can be head for much less than Telyt second hand on eBay. The other lenses I would consider is a Canon LTM 3.5/135 L39 and a Nikkor 2.8/135 via adapter. Many thanks in advance for your advice.

[bocaburger]

I would suggest the e39 version of the T-E, it's optically the same as the e46 version but much less expensive.  Second after that would be the f/4 Elmar of 1960.  Also quite inexpensive with 90% the performance of the T-E, plus it's lighter and has it's own tripod attachment.  If it's mainly to be used as you say occasionally for landscape and nature photography, a late model Hektor is also a fine lens when stopped down to f/8-11.  The latter 2 can be found in LTM also.  If it's cheap enough that with an adapter ends up costing less than an M version, don't hesitate. 

 

With any of these lenses (including the e46 T-E and f/3.4 APO) be sure you can either check the lens out in person or return it without fuss or penalty, as some of them are not finely enough calibrated to focus accurately on digital sensors.  My LTM Hektor and M-mount Elmar were both luckily spot-on, but I had to DIY shave down the rear landing of the optical cell on my T-E to bring it about 1mm closer to the focal plane, then reorient the aperture ring and focus indices, as a trip to a respected indie repairperson failed to cure its misfocusing.  Of course that is in reference to rangefinder focusing.  If you only use Live View it doesn't matter. 

[jaques]

if I was you- I would be quite happy witht the affordable- excellent value- Tele Elmar. I have one and it is a fantastic lens and very useful to me for doing stage/concert photography when I can't get too close. Also really good for landscape. I do not find this lens that hard to focus- either on the m9 or the m240. Build quality is superb and the photos are very sharp/good- it is the perfect choice if you only occasionally need the 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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few of these photos are incorrecty labelled 'elmarit'.

 

[pop]

I've posted three threads just the other day where I used a Tele-Elmar 1:4/135mm for some nature shots, albeit on a Nex-5N:

Irises, Poppy , A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

I find that lens very good, but I have difficulty focusing it with a rangefinder.

[250swb]

I have used both the 135mm f/2.8 Nikon with adapter and the Tele Elmar f/4 on a M240 and in terms of IQ there isn't much in it. But the Nikon is a heavy beast which could be a consideration if you are going to hand hold the camera, rangefinder focusing isn't as easy as an SLR with a telephoto. If you are using a tripod or monopod then I think it's about how much weight you want to carry, and the Tele Elmar is much lighter and more compact, so that is the one I use most.

 

Here is one using an MM and the Tele Elmar, camera on tripod

 

 

Steve

[250swb]

I should have said 'rangefinder camera focusing even with an EVF isn't as easy as with an SLR' with regards to the Nikon lens.

 

Steve

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First choice Tele-Elmar as reported. For even less money and nearly as good, 135mm Elmar from 1960s. I have both and enjoy each for its character and capabilities. A good copy is less than half the price of a T-E. The latter is lovely for portraiture where clinical sharpness is a hindrance.

[ayewing]

I would certainly support the suggestion of the Tele-Elmar 135. I have a good near mint example which I liked when used with my M9 though I did struggle a little with the rangefinder focusing. With the M240 and Live View it is very sharp. An added bonus is that the head can be unscrewed and used with tthe Bellows II for macro work.

[luigi bertolotti]

No doubt to join the advice towards the Tele Elmar E39 : a good price/performance ratio, a lens very well built as all Leitz lenses of its breed (designed after the M intro, which represnted a step up in all the already excellent mechanical engineering level at Leitz): it's also decent to carry ; not too long (the old Elmar and Hektor are longer) not too bulky (an unavoidable defect of the Tele Elmarit 135 2,8), even pocketable depending on pockets...

[rsolomon]

Was looking at this lens just thIs past weekend. It was MUCH lighter and easier to handle then I expected. Playing some I was surprised how well it seemed to 'fit' the camera, no bulkiness at all. On focus the ring seemed tight but I think it's by design since DOF is shallow. I really didn't think I needed the EVF but then put one on and clearly it's easier to focus. The new Leica Setup would be about 3300 for the lens and 500 for the EVF. Of course used versions cheaper and the Oly EV-2 is I fact the same device for 50%.

 

my current kit is m240, 35 cron, 75 cron , I'm not to excited about the 3.4 on the 135 but still in limbo on whether to execute at this time. 

 

Let us us know what you do and results.

[bocaburger]

Having owned the APO I can honestly say the cost difference over the T-E would've been worth it only if my primary subject was lens-testing charts.  And I paid $1300 for mine brand new when it first came out, at which time an e39 T-E sold used for about the same as it does today.  The difference now is double. 

[uhoh7]

Hi, please help me to decide, I am considering a 135 mm lens for my Leica M 240. This lens would be used occasionally for landscape and nature photography mainly. Now I have read lots of articles on 135 lenses on the Internet and that is where it gets more confusing. Leica APO-TELYT-M 3.4/135 is obviously the best of the bunch, but the fact that the lens will be used only occasionally and its cost is out of contention. Next would be a Leica Tele Elmar 4.0/135 E46 that can be head for much less than Telyt second hand on eBay. The other lenses I would consider is a Canon LTM 3.5/135 L39 and a Nikkor 2.8/135 via adapter. Many thanks in advance for your advice.

 

Really, the Canon is quite sharp and I think I paid 70USD. It's the lightest of the 135s. Another one I use pretty often is the leitz 135/2.8, which is another good deal. Heavy, and it has googles, but it's good even WO. My main 135 is the APO, but it can't do:

 

Wonder_0-167 by Charlie Webster, m9 135/2.8

 

I tried the vaunted TE, but it was nearly as heavy as the 2.8! The canon and APO handling far better.

[Paulus]

Hi, please help me to decide, I am considering a 135 mm lens for my Leica M 240. This lens would be used occasionally for landscape and nature photography mainly. Now I have read lots of articles on 135 lenses on the Internet and that is where it gets more confusing. Leica APO-TELYT-M 3.4/135 is obviously the best of the bunch, but the fact that the lens will be used only occasionally and its cost is out of contention. Next would be a Leica Tele Elmar 4.0/135 E46 that can be head for much less than Telyt second hand on eBay. The other lenses I would consider is a Canon LTM 3.5/135 L39 and a Nikkor 2.8/135 via adapter. Many thanks in advance for your advice.

Tele Elmar is a nice lens. here I made some photos with it:

 

http://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Photography/Trying-135mm-in-Amsterdam

[arthurgalvao]

I shoot mainly landscapes and I absolutely love my 135 APO. I know it a little more salty when it comes to pricing but I felt the trade for me was absolutely worth it, as I previously had the 135 Elmarit. I love the way it renders in my cameras, both film and digital. 

 

Sorry for the ridiculously bad quality of the image. If you want to see it in a slightly better quality go to my website: http://www.arthurgphotography.com/#!color/c2zv

 

Hope it helps a lil bit. 

 

Best,

 

Arthur Galvão

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!

[efreed2754]

Used Tele Elmar for many years and very satisfied.  

 

After going on Alaska trip tried 180 4.0 with adapter on M and not very pleased with speed of use, focusing and results.  Decided 135 on M better solution with some cropping so....

 

Purchased as new 135 APO and never looked back.  Since not many sold get big enough discount off new that given amount of use deemed worthwhile.  Lighter, faster and M identifies lens.  This is my long lens to use on rangefinder or with finder if preferred.

 

Now much quicker to attach APO with no adapter.  Images are better and kit lighter.  May not have done if had to pay list price.

[bocaburger]

^ You mean the 180/4 R lens?  It's main claim to fame was size/weight and never had the reputation of being a stellar performer.  I had one (for the size reason) and found that the Minolta-designed 70-210/4 at 180 is sharper and contrastier. 

[Jean-Michel]

One more plus for the Tele-Elmar. I have the Elmarit and it is OK with my M9, quite fine at smaller apertures and rarely used at f/2.8. The Tele-Elmar is much lighter and both lenses have rather approximate frames! The Elmarit works nicely on the M3 with its large 90 mm frame. I sold the T-E some years ago much to my chagrin today. 

Jean-Michel

[efreed2754]

^ You mean the 180/4 R lens?  It's main claim to fame was size/weight and never had the reputation of being a stellar performer.  I had one (for the size reason) and found that the Minolta-designed 70-210/4 at 180 is sharper and contrastier. 

 

Yes that's the beast.  Got acceptable images on R8 for many years.   Just had trouble with the M and found the difference of 180-135 not that huge given advantages of a rangefinder lens.   Again, value of APO changes when pay $1,000 less than list price.  YMMV as always.

[bocaburger]

Honestly since upgrading from M9 to M240 I haven't used my 135's much. My 90/2.8 or 90/2 crop easily to the same FOV as a 135/4, so it was usually when I needed something longer than 135 that I used that focal length, and then cropped it to say 180 FOV.  But with the EVF, today I tend to bring the 70-210/4 R lens. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[efreed2754]

Honestly since upgrading from M9 to M240 I haven't used my 135's much. My 90/2.8 or 90/2 crop easily to the same FOV as a 135/4, so it was usually when I needed something longer than 135 that I used that focal length, and then cropped it to say 180 FOV.  But with the EVF, today I tend to bring the 70-210/4 R lens. 

 

Understand and should work most of the time.  That's my logic using 135 and cropping to 180+ but no adapters or extra weight of R glass.   Depends on the situation.  In LA now and 90 2.8 is my longest.