Telephoto lenses for M10

[hoolyproductions]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I rarely post here but am a regular reader

 

I went ‘back to basics’ with rangefinder film cameras just over three years ago (m6), having previously used Nikon dSLRs and then a spell with Sony SLT and A7 cameras. At that time I had Nikkor 80-200mm AF-D, followed by 70-200 AF-S, also the (wonderful) Sony 135mm f/1.8 and Sony FE 70-200mm f4.

 

My working photography is now mainly the music scene in Helsinki – small, low lit bars where 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses have been all I need (and are all I have). I also like to make cityscape, abstract and travel/landscape shots. In addition to my M6 I returned to digital about a year ago with an M240-P. Recently I’ve been using the 90mm more and more and would like to be able to do longer telephoto shots from time to time. In addition I am on a waiting list for the M10 and would use it with the Visoflex 020 for telephoto.

 

So I’m looking for advice on the following, having read all I can find about these lenses here and elsewhere. In my summary below I’ve pointed out the main ‘features’ of these lenses in terms of how I’d expect to use them.

 

I almost never use a tripod so handheld ergonomics is a priority.

 

135mm APO f/3.4 M mount

Pros: Lightest of the bunch (more likely to carry). Native M mount. Could be used also with my film M. Second hand it is not much more expensive than the previous f/4 version.

Cons/doubts: 135mm isn’t much more reach than my existing 90mm. OTOH 135mm can be cropped to 200mm in many situations.

 

180mm Elmar f/4 R mount

Pros: Almost as light as the 135mm, a lot more reach than my current 90mm. Cheapest of the bunch.

Cons/doubts: A handful of internet denizens like the quality of the lens, but overall this seems to be the poorest quality optic of the (eminent) bunch

 

180mm Elmarit f/2.8 II (pre-APO) R mount

Pros: Relatively light for focal length and aperture. High performance optic (not as perfect as the APO but this is heavier and in a different league in terms of price). Fast lens (which is also good for handheld preference)

Cons: Weight/size means I would probably only carry it with a very specific intention of shooting telephoto.

 

80-200mm Vario f/4 R mount (latest version)

Pros: Most versatile of the bunch. From prior experience with medium/long telephoto the ability to ‘frame the scene’ by pulling back from maximum zoom is very useful for cityscape and landscape. High performance optic and very good close focus (1 metre)

Cons: Heaviest and bulkiest of the bunch, would only carry with a clear intent to use it, so opportunistic shots would not be an option.

 

In terms of the personal preferences I have for weight/speed that is down to me to figure out, but in particular I’d be grateful for example shots with these lenses, comments on the real world quality of the Elmar F/4, and on the ergonomics of the bulkier lenses. Thanks in advance!

Edited March 31, 2017 by hoolyproductions

[cp995]

What about the Leica Apo Telyt R 3.4/180mm?

I like using it beside my 90mm Summicron-M

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

Yes i would not rule out the excellent and affordable Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 which is sharper than both R 180/2.8 pre-apo and R 180/4 if memory serves me well. At least it is the Leica 180 i chose and i'm still using it now even if i prefer my Nikon 180/2.8 but it's just me. Now the M 135/3.4 apo is an outstanding lens which is significantly lighter than any 180 and can be used together with the rangefinder even if the EVF can be more accurate. But the Visoflex for M10 would have to be competent enough in dark environments on moving subject matters which remains to be seen. I have no experience with it but that of my M240 is almost useless for this purpose and the one second blackout time of the Visoflex makes me wonder if it is significantly more usable for that. But again i have no experience with it so better ask M10 owners to be sure.

[chris_tribble]

I have the 135 AT and the 80-200 R f4.  I also use the Visoflex 020 (which is great!)

 

If you want hand held and easiest to use I'd strongly recommend the 135.  The reach is surprisingly good and it has two SERIOUS benefits.

 

1. You don't have to depend on the EVF.  Often working with high iso + stopping down to f5.6 you can focus with surprising accuracy on the M10

2. When you do use the M10 you benefit hugely (IMO) from the auto magification focus. With the R lens you have to use the magnification button on the front of the camera - it's not a big deal, but I've found it makes a difference.

 

I know what you mean about the convenience of zoom - and the 80-200 is a very nice lens to work with.  However, if you were only chosing one I'd go for the native M mount.  If budget is an issue, I know others who really like some of the alternative Leica M mount 135s (though for me, the Apo-Telyt is the best in terms of contrast and overall punch).

 

Hope this helps.

[chris_tribble]

 But the Visoflex for M10 would have to be competent enough in dark environments on moving subject matters which remains to be seen. I have no experience with it but that of my M240 is almost useless for that purpose and the one second blackout time of the Visoflex makes me wonder if it is significantly more usable for that. But again i have no experience with it so better ask M10 owners to be sure.

The Visoflex 020 is light years better than the EVF experience on the M240.  Not perfect, not quite as good as the SL, but very very usable IMHO.

[bocaburger]

Idk where you're finding 135/3.4-APO's not much more expensive than the f/4 T-E.  Maybe the e46 version of the latter, but the same-optics e39 version sells here for between a fifth and a tenth of the APO's cost.  The prior f/4 Elmar (non-tele) is about 80% as good and even cheaper.  To me those are the best bang for the buck of all M lenses out there.

 

As for the zoom, the 70-210/4 is smaller and lighter than the 80-200/4 and despite having been a Minolta design (the 80-200/4 was in fact built by Kyocera) it keeps up remarkably performance-wise.  Its also a one-touch, which makes it a lot faster to use handheld.   And, you can find good examples for a quarter to a third the cost of the 80-200. 

 

That said, once you're talking about non-rf-coupled lenses, it opens up the possibility of many fine lenses from brands other than Leica. 

 

 

 

 

135mm APO f/3.4 M mount

Pros: Lightest of the bunch (more likely to carry). Native M mount. Could be used also with my film M. Second hand it is not much more expensive than the previous f/4 version.

Cons/doubts: 135mm isn’t much more reach than my existing 90mm. OTOH 135mm can be cropped to 200mm in many situations.

 

80-200mm Vario f/4 R mount (latest version)

Pros: Most versatile of the bunch. From prior experience with medium/long telephoto the ability to ‘frame the scene’ by pulling back from maximum zoom is very useful for cityscape and landscape. High performance optic and very good close focus (1 metre)

Cons: Heaviest and bulkiest of the bunch, would only carry with a clear intent to use it, so opportunistic shots would not be an option.

 

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You missed the 105-280 Vario-Elmar-R. Maybe a bit more extreme, but one of the best zoom lenses ever built.

In the short/light/cheap zoom lenses, the Olympus 75-150 4.0 is a no-brainer lens, light, small, very good image  quality and it will cost less than 100 Euro..

[ramarren]

I sold the heavy Elmarit-R 180mm f/2.8 v1 and Telyt-R 250mm f/4, but hung onto the Elmar-R 180/4. Although not the most highly spoken of lens, it is a fine performer and does me well when I want to carry a modest size, modest weight, good performing tele for a bit more reach. It's about the same size as the Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8, but a little bit lighter. 

 

Tree #1119

Leica SL + Elmar-R 180mm f/4

ISO 400 @ f/6.8 @ 1/250

[Guest]

I have the 135 AT and the 80-200 R f4.  I also use the Visoflex 020 (which is great!)

 

If you want hand held and easiest to use I'd strongly recommend the 135.  The reach is surprisingly good and it has two SERIOUS benefits.

 

1. You don't have to depend on the EVF.  Often working with high iso + stopping down to f5.6 you can focus with surprising accuracy on the M10

2. When you do use the M10 you benefit hugely (IMO) from the auto magification focus. With the R lens you have to use the magnification button on the front of the camera - it's not a big deal, but I've found it makes a difference.

 

I know what you mean about the convenience of zoom - and the 80-200 is a very nice lens to work with.  However, if you were only chosing one I'd go for the native M mount.  If budget is an issue, I know others who really like some of the alternative Leica M mount 135s (though for me, the Apo-Telyt is the best in terms of contrast and overall punch).

 

Hope this helps.

 

+1 for the 135 AT, great lens for hand-holding with the M10.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I was going to sell my 135APO but it's much more usable on the M10. I'm not having much trouble focusing it with the RF even wide open. That wasn't the case with the 240.

 

I did sell my 80-200 f4. And now with the M 10 I wish I hadn't. It would probably be my choice if I still had it. The EVF implementation on the M10 is noticably better than on the type 240.

 

Gordon

[graphlex]

Version III Elmarit-M (ca. 1990) is underrated and a fine performer. Weighs a ton but readily handholdable as a result. Dirt cheap.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[adan]

1. On the Elmar-R 180 - this lens is a bit soft, but it is a gaussian softness that responds well to unsharp mask or other sharpening in post. It does not improve much stopped down, so you may as well use aperture just for DoF.

 

However - the softness and the smaller aperture (more DoF) means it does not "snap" into focus very well. I just tried one this winter on a Canon SLR, and even with the optional "for manual focusing" ground glass (well, plastic), it was just a real pain to tell when I was actually in focus. It was no loss at all to trade it as part of my M10 purchase.

 

Naturally - IF you have time to switch to magnified view on an EVF, that may improve things.

 

2. I tend to strongly second the thoughts about the flexibility of a 135 in true M mount. I don't bother now with any SLR lens below 300mm.

 

3. But if you must use something longer than 135 - i.e. Leica R teles - my experience is, go APO or don't bother. The non-APO prime teles date to the 1980s or earlier - and were being beaten by Canon and Nikon even then (Nikkor ED 180 f/2.8 manual version, for example). Not necessarily unsharp, but dull and with lots of CA.

 

And the 180 f/3.4 APO was the first, and set the standard. Simply amazing clarity, across the frame, at any aperture, to the limits of what any film and most current sensors can capture.

 

I'm away from home and my picture files right now, but go to my magazines for 2011, and go to the back of the issue 04/2011, and look for a full-spread shot of a couple walking into the sand dunes. At original resolution, you can see their strands of hair - even tiny and way down in the corner at f/3.4. Unbelievable! (Well perhaps not - the lens was designed for the US Navy originally, so that they could snap Soviet fighters from a couple of miles away and read the unit markings - )

 

http://www.coloradoseen.com/2011/

 

Alternatively, and more apropos for venue work, check my Roller Derby track pictures, also all made with a 180 f/3.4 APO (on Canon 5D I/II). Issue for August 2010.

 

http://www.coloradoseen.com/2010/

 

The only downside to the 180 APO f/3.4 is the close-focus limit of ~2.5 meters, which may or may not be a problem for music shots. And that it needed an extra camera until the M240/M10 came along.

 

(Darn - now I've probably talked myself into buying another!)

[hoolyproductions]

Many thanks for all the replies, and in particular for the descriptions of the Elmar performance for the Elmar example shot.

 

I ruled out the Teylt 180 due to the short minimum focus. This wouldn't be an issue for music shots as such but in general I would like the option of closer focus e.g. for candid portraits or closer shots. Also it does not seem hugely lighter than the 180 Elmarit (although I guess 200g could make a big difference to how the lens balances in hand).

 

Adan your shots with the Telyt are great and do make me think twice. My wife used to do roller derby so will also enjoy them  How to you find the (rather maligned) closer range?

Edited April 1, 2017 by hoolyproductions

[algaesnaps]

I am a Leica M typ240 user, a lovely light camera and do a lot of air show photography. On this camera I use a Voightlander (Rolleinar) 400mm f5.6 lens with the Rollei QBM mount removed as only 3 screws holding it in position and replaced with a Canon EOS bayonet as this is a direct replacement. I then use this lens on my Leica M typ 240 with a EOS to Leica M adapter. Gives perfect infinity focus and I of course use this with the Leica electronic viewfinder.

This Rollei/Voightlander 400mm telephoto lens made of metal was in fact made by Tokina to a ZEISS design, it's nice and light, producing superb sharp images and very easy to use when tracking aircraft. Together with Leica quality. My back up camera is a Canon 5D mark II and I can of course use this same lens, although I much prefer to use the Leica.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ramarren]

Many thanks for all the replies, and in particular for the descriptions of the Elmar performance for the Elmar example shot.

...

 

 

You're welcome, glad to help. I don't quite understand the notion that the Elmar-R 180 is hard to focus: focus snaps in and out quite clearly with both my Leicaflex SL and with the Leica SL as well. It's contrasty and very sharp. f/4 nets a nice shallow DoF, f/8-11 (where one usually uses a 180mm lens) gives nice DoF as well. Focuses down to about 5.5 feet, a Macro Adapter-R brings that down even further. Two more examples:

 

Leica SL + Elmar-R 180mm f/4

ISO 800 @ f/6.8 @ 1/125

 

Leica SL + 2x Extender-R + Elmar-R 180mm f/4

ISO 400 @ f/8 (f/16 effective) @ 2.5 sec

 

This photo of Sizzle the Valentine Bear shows some of the detail capability. I took a tiny part of the image and ran the exposure up in Lightroom to see into it: 

 

 

You can clearly see the camera on tripod taking the photo. The big blurry mass to the left of that is me as I moved around through the 2.5 second exposure.

 

This lens outperforms my old Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AI-S easily, and it's even older. It also doesn't overwhelm the tripod: 

 

Leica SL + 2x Extender-R + Elmar-R 180mm f/4

iPhone 6

Edited April 1, 2017 by ramarren

[hoolyproductions]

 

Idk where you're finding 135/3.4-APO's not much more expensive than the f/4 T-E.  Maybe the e46 version of the latter

 

 

 

Yes, the e46

[adan]

Adan your shots with the Telyt are great and do make me think twice. My wife used to do roller derby so will also enjoy them  How to you find the (rather maligned) closer range?

 

I tended to revert back to a lighter smaller M 90 or 135 when under 3 meters anyway, but my impression was that the APO-Telyt was not bad at 2.5 meters, simply not as stellar as it was near infinity. Comparable to ramarren's teddy-bear example. But on the couple of occasions I tried to extend the Telyt's focus range with an extension tube, it really did start to get dreamy and nothing at all like the performance beyond 2.5 meters.

 

As an aside, it is only in the past 15 years or so (being able to pixel-peep) that I've really started to notice just how much performance difference there is sometimes at different subject distances. Having now tried some "infinity-optimized" lenses like the Telyt, or the Hasselblad Zeiss 100mm designed for NASA orbit-to-Earth photography; and general-purpose lenses optimized for 100x or 1000x the focal length (5 or 50 meters for a 50mm); and true macros (the Zeiss 120 Makro-Planars) optimized for 1:5 magnification, that degrade at over 10 feet; or the difference between the 90 APO-Summicron (no FLE) and the 75 APO-Summicron (with FLE) in the close range.

[lct]

Never found that the R 180/3.4 apo is soft at short focus distance. Here at 2.5m on my old 5D1.

 

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!

 

[jmahto]

I have ongoing quest for finding the lightest and best telephoto lens and I keep experimenting all the time. What I have found is that there is no appreciable difference between resolution difference for a given focal length and 1.5 times its focal length (of course DOF difference for same aperture exists but sometimes more DOF is preferable). You can do all sorts of digital PP to bridge the gap. What it means is that a sharp 90mm (like 90mm macro-elmar) can be cropped/enlarged and sharpened carefully to give a very much equivalent pic compared to the one taken by a good 135mm lens. The difference is only in very high frequency details and in real life these are few and far (lettering, fine details in architecture etc.). For most subjects it is just fine.

 

The difference become more visible when you compare with double the focal length (90mm with 180mm). But here also difference is only visible in large print/presentation. Upto A4 (maybe A3 as well) there is no difference between cropped 90mm and 180mm picture.

 

What it means is that unless I am planning to print really large, my tiny 90mm macro-elmar is sufficient. BTW, for 180mm I am leaning towards 180APO 3.4+2xAPO. I have used 180Lanthar (nikon mount) and is excellent with close focus and is light but I can't double the focal length if needed. There is nothing in Nikon mount equivalent to 2XAPO.

Edited April 2, 2017 by jmahto

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[cp995]

... There is nothing in Nikon mount equivalent to 2XAPO.

 

Why only Nikon?

Get an adapter for Canon FD an try the FDn 4/300L

You will never ask for a 2x solution ...