jto555 Posted August 3, 2016 Share #21 Posted August 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use a 135mm F2.8 for portraits as the (very) slight softness at full and close to full aperture helps with softening down the skin. This can save a bit of time with post production! My APO, while a wonderful lens, is back with Leica for the second or third time to get the focus adjusted. I have to say for general use the F2.8 version has two flaws. One, it is quite large with the Goggles, and two, he focus throw is very long. For fast work I miss shots due to not been able to get focus fast enough. Other than that the lens is sharp enough. If I need 'sharper' then I really should be using medium format. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Hi jto555, Take a look here Leica 135mm lenses for M cameras advice sought. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 3, 2016 Share #22 Posted August 3, 2016 Note though, that the last version of the Elmarit 135 (Version III) is very much the better lens - a complete optical redesign. Older versions (I and II) are a bit ho-hum in my experience. Another aspect I do not like is the tunnel vision created by the goggles. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 3, 2016 Author Share #23 Posted August 3, 2016 Why expensive? Will van Manen adjusted my Tele-Elmar, it was years ago, and it was emphatically not expensive. I got my APO cheap,some years ago as it was A-, but I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. I still prefer to use the old type Tele-Elmar, much nicer to focus as the throw and feel suit me better. For daily work, I don't really see a difference in quality - I need a tripod for that. I'll bear that in mind. Last lens I had was not sharp across the frame either - looked fine though so I'm not sure what work would have been required on it. In my experience costs can quickly rise so I'm wary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 6, 2016 Author Share #24 Posted August 6, 2016 OK so I thought I'd give an E46 version a go as the price was viable! First I've checked infinity focus on my T. Results are encouraging - its certainly sharp at infinity and infinity is infinity which is handy. Landscape, or should I say cloudscape, from today: 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! 14 Quote 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/263103-leica-135mm-lenses-for-m-cameras-advice-sought/?do=findComment&comment=3092000'>More sharing options...
graphlex Posted August 6, 2016 Share #25 Posted August 6, 2016 If properly adjusted, the Elmarit with goggles focuses nicely on the M240, at least mine does. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 7, 2016 Share #26 Posted August 7, 2016 I had numerous 135's over the years, but by the time I got an M8 the only one I had left was a late-model Hektor in LTM. (Shot stopped down to f/8-11 it was a spectacular lens yet practically valueless, so it's the one I held onto). When I got an M9 I went looking for a newer 135. The first one I bought was an Elmar f/4, which is a very underrated lens and quite inexpensive considering how well it performs. Head and shoulders above a Hektor, and only minutely under a T-E. The sample I got happened to focus spot-on and does to this day. But I kept looking for a T-E and kept returning them because they were very far off in focusing. Finally I found one that was just a tad off and sent it to a well-known repairperson. They returned it basically focusing the same way when I sent it many months earlier. At that point I determined the lens head needed to rest closer to the focal plane when at infinity, and I milled down the part on the optical cell where it seats in the helicoid. That then threw off the thread timing where the cell screws into the helicoid and the index no longer lined up correctly, so I had to reset that. It now focuses tack-sharp, but the operation would definitely not be for the faint of heart. I have never purchased an Elmarit, because it's huge, heavy and cumbersome and what goggles provide in magnification they rob from contrast. At one time I had the E46 version of the T-E, it's optically identical to the earlier version but uses a larger filter than my other travel lenses, so I sold it on. At one time I also had the APO, and as others have said, the improvements on paper translate to practical photography only with meticulous technique, which typically means using a tripod and cable release or selftimer. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 7, 2016 Share #27 Posted August 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just two points on the 135 APO-Telyt. - It has a tendency to flare in a way similar to the "thin" 90mm Tele-Elmarit - internal reflections in the lens barrel, if there is a light source just outside the image area. See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/245402-135mm-apo-telyt-flare/ - Its light weight actually makes it more prone to wave around and produce shake - I can generally hand-hold my Tele-Elmar about 1 shutter-speed slower than the APO. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted August 7, 2016 Share #28 Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) OK so I thought I'd give an E46 version a go as the price was viable! First I've checked infinity focus on my T. Results are encouraging - its certainly sharp at infinity and infinity is infinity which is handy. Landscape, or should I say cloudscape, from today: Snowdonia Clouds © Paul Kay.jpg Great landscape! And couldn't be more typical and almost exclusively British. Hopefully a good sign for your marriage with the new 135 Edited August 7, 2016 by otto.f 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 7, 2016 Author Share #29 Posted August 7, 2016 The sample I got happened to focus spot-on and does to this day. But I kept looking for a T-E and kept returning them because they were very far off in focusing. I do wonder (hope) that the mechanics were redesigned ant the E46 version produced because of inconsistency - I first had a 135T-E back in the early 80s and it was fabulous on film - lovely Kodachromes (some of which I still have although they never seem quite as sharp as I remembered them to be - could be 30+ years of dye migration I suppose. Anyway I'll persevere with this one - it looks and feels very little used and was (for its version) very reasonable indeed. It about completes my lens line up (well there are always other, faster lenses which might just be useful inevitably) as I can cover virtually every situation that I can see using my rangefinders in now, and putting them on the T body is a bonus too. Thanks everyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregm61 Posted August 7, 2016 Share #30 Posted August 7, 2016 I have a 1970 Tele Elmar 135mm f4 that is very accurate to focus and sharp on my M262. I thought I needed to replace it with a bit bit coded last version 135 TE and when it arrived the focus was way off. Need to send it to DAG for a recalibration. Haven't done so yet. Just keep using the older, excellent prior version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsleica Posted August 7, 2016 Share #31 Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) I use the Elmar 135 f4. Its better than the Hektor... Cheap and good...lanthanum glass...good enough quality..for $200- in mint..nice lens.. Edited August 7, 2016 by tsleica Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 26, 2016 Author Share #32 Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) A recent trip (Mayo - the Mullet - fabulous!) let me try out the E46 135/4 better. Its proving to be a very nice lens - classic Mandler in that fine detail is never harshly resolved but is all there. Focus seems spot on and flare well controlled, contrast is good and only marginal adjustment to the files yield lovely image quality. A simple 'focus trial' shot below illustrates its viability I think although for detail you will simply have to accept my word that its all there! Also: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263880-told-you-so/ 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! Edited August 26, 2016 by pgk 2 Quote 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/263103-leica-135mm-lenses-for-m-cameras-advice-sought/?do=findComment&comment=3101952'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2016 Share #33 Posted August 26, 2016 Note though, that the last version of the Elmarit 135 (Version III) is very much the better lens - a complete optical redesign. Older versions (I and II) are a bit ho-hum in my experience. Another aspect I do not like is the tunnel vision created by the goggles. Very interesting - Laney / Puts describe in Leica Pocket Book, 7th Edition 2003 only two versions of the Elmarit 2.8-135mm: 1. Version 1963-1973 - serial numbers from 1,957,001, 2. Version 1973-1997 - serial numbers from 2,656,667. The two models differ by a slightly modified optical design and use of other types of glass. Listed is a change from the series VII filter to filter E55 with serial numbers from 2,788,927. Will this last series with filter E55 counted as the 3 version? Or is there a different counting method? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 26, 2016 Share #34 Posted August 26, 2016 Erwin must have seen the light In his Leica Compendium he mentions versions I, II, and III. The difference between I and II seems to be a slight recomputation on the introduction of the R version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 26, 2016 Share #35 Posted August 26, 2016 My v3 the same optical formula as v2 AFAIK but i may be wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 26, 2016 Share #36 Posted August 26, 2016 Hmm - my Puts Compendium shows three optical diagrams for the 135 f/2.8 M v.1 1963 v.2 1964 - slight changes to the glass type and thickness of the first two elements, very little performance change. v.1 for the R system. Subtle - I think Laney just missed that change. v.3 1973 - major redesign throughout. v.2 in the R mount. Per Puts, improved contrast @ f/2.8, better close-range quality, softer corners than previous versions Optical layout v.1 and 2 - elements and groups(2) and aperture(a): 1-1-2-a-1........ v.3, 1-2-1-a-1 The switch from Series VII to E55 (1976) doesn't count as a new version, since the optics did not change. Same for other cosmetics - change from scalloped to fine knurling; addition of the large yellow engraved "135" on the barrel. ____________ @pgk - yes, one of the Mandler signatures is that when the fine detail is a bit soft, it is soft in a "gaussian blur." Which is the mathematical flip-side of standard digital sharpening (local edge contrast increase), and therefore "clarifies" extremely nicely with just a simple "Sharpen" command. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 26, 2016 Share #37 Posted August 26, 2016 FWIW my Leitz catalogues from 1973 & 1976 show the same v2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted September 2, 2016 Share #38 Posted September 2, 2016 This won't help the original poster, but have had a couple of the 135s over the years with goggles, the Elmarit. Traded in the first one, then rebought a used one ridiculously cheap! It did great on the m6, even hand held, but I hated the weight! It is still a good lens and wish was a way to remove the goggles and rely on the EVF. I bought a used one with danaged goggles simply to do that on a micro4/3 camera. In the end I got Malcolm Taylor to sort out the goggles so I can use it on the M6 and M3, and bought a short focus mount for the lens head to use with a Visoflex adapter for the digital cameras. Made a very nice 270/2.8 equivalent on m4/3. Gerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted September 4, 2016 Share #39 Posted September 4, 2016 Hmmm - I've use the A-T 135 f3.4 for the last ten years and it's my go to trekking lens - paired with the 35 Summicron. It gives wonderful reach for such a compact light lens. I also use it for reportage. While my 5D series bodies + IS 70-200 L series lens beats it hands down for ease of use and % of keepers, I still wouldn't be without it. Examples below: 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! 1 Quote 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/263103-leica-135mm-lenses-for-m-cameras-advice-sought/?do=findComment&comment=3106820'>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.