135mm APO: Tell me about it

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also interested in this lens, for both film and digital, are they 6 bit coded?

 

The 135/3.4 is indeed 6 bit coded.

[MarkP]

The 135/3.4 is indeed 6 bit coded.

 

Actually, most of the older 3.4/135 APO-Telyts were sold without 6-bit coding even when most of Leica's other M-lenses were. This can, of course, be done aftermarket Leica

 

You only need coding to catalogue information as the lens requires virtually no correction.

Edited December 2, 2017 by MarkP

[jaapv]

Hi All!

I wish Leica have the M 135 f2.0, but They did not have!

How about your idea of IQ, render, bokeh ... for portrai & landscape if I will buy Zeiss Apo 135 f2.0 to shoot with my M10 and SL601?

Have a nice weekend!

Thanks!

 The combo might be a bit on the unwieldy side...

 

https://wild-places.com/2016/03/20/leica-3-4135mm-vs-zeiss-2-0135mm-on-a7rii/

[adan]

135 is actually my single favorite long lens on the Leica M. The only reason I stoop to a 90 or 75 these days is to get a much faster aperture in really dim light, or a 75's tighter framing at minimum focus (studio/nature work). I generally find the 135 easier and more reliable to focus @ f/4 than a 90 @ f/2 (i.e. both wide-open), regardless of what DoF tables may say. Probably something to do with the longer subject distance and the smaller aperture combined. And especially with the M10's improved rangefinder system. The M10's ISO performance also makes the 135s more viable in dim light than before (equivalent to using a hypothetical 135 f/2 on the M9).

 

I do not use the 135 simply to magnify subjects from longer distances, but because I truly love its more graphic "2D" composition and flattened, compressed perspective, as a contrast to my 35 or 21mm lenses. Usually, I could get closer and simply use a 90 or 75 - but the foreground/background relationships would not be what I want. The 90 and 75 just feel too "normal" to me, most of the time.

 

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!

 

I do not use the f/3.4 APO due to the fact that it occasionally has veiling-flare problems from reflections off the inside of the lens barrel if there is a bright light source (e.g. backlit sun, or a lamp indoors) just outside the picture area. This is a problem with the barrel baffling, not reflections within the glass itself.

 

I use the non-APO f/4.0 Tele-Elmar, previously the 1960s/70s E39 versions, and now the last version made (E46, built-in lens hood) because it does not flare to the same degree, and is of sturdier construction (like the APO) than those earlier (and aging) f/4s. Although a good-condition late E39 Tele-Elmar can be an amazing Leica value, often found for less than $500.

 

The APO is definitely an excellent lens otherwise, and significantly lighter weight than the Tele-Elmars (*sigh* ).

 

This Tele-Elmar E39 shot from earlier this year shows 1) a hint of the veiling flare that can also plague the APO (light just outside of picture, top right) and 2) how far the M10's high ISO capability (ISO 6400 in this case) expands the usable range of the 135s into night-time darkness.