If you have a 135mm lens, how often do you use it?

[david.kize]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering the purchase of an APO Telyt M 135mm f/3.4 lens for use on my M10 camera.  At present, I am NOT planning to buy this lens.

I own three Leica lenses: the Summicron 35mm and 75mm, and the Summilux 50mm.

My questions are for those of you who own a 135mm lens (any type) that you mount on an M camera body:

1)    How often do you use this lens?

2)    Primarily for what purposes?

3)    Do you find that a Visoflex 020 (or other) EVF is highly advisable for focusing?

I own Nikon DSLRs (D500 and D800) with telephoto zoom lenses, which if used, would include the range afforded by the 135mm prime lens.

I will be taking two vacation trips this summer, and I want to travel light.  I may not even take all my Leica lenses.  But the 135mm APO Telyt is in my mind as a possibility, in lieu of taking any DSLR and zoom lens.    

Even if I were to bring all my Leica lenses, all but one or two of them would likely stay behind in a hotel or ship or car.  I would make do with whatever I have on my person at the time.  I would have no time to concentrate on taking pictures if I found myself doing lots of lens swapping from a carried bag or daypack.

Here’s my own view of the 135mm prime lens:  I am dubious on how often I would need 135, as compared to using the 75 (or even the 50) and cropping if needed.  Once one needs a longer focal length than 75 or 90, it’s most likely that a DSLR with a long telephoto zoom or prime lens is going to be needed, instead of 135mm.  I also have questions regarding my ability to focus the 135mm lens on an M10.

[wda]

1.   Not very often.

 

2.   Air shows and animal portraits

 

3.   Yes,

[Advertisement]

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

[Ko.Fe.]

I had Leitz 135 LTM lens once. I couldn't use it on M without modification. Sold it. No plans for 135mm lens after it.

[pgk]

1. As required - not all the time, but it certainly gets used.

2. Whenever a longer lens is needed - landscapes mostly but varies.

3. Use it on an M9 so no, it is fine with the RF if used carefully.

 

Thing is, that if you don't want to carry another camera system then the M 135 is potentially very useful, if, that is, you like using this focal length - I do.

 

And to add, I shoot mostly on 21/35/90 as probably many do (or similar combination). The 135 is usually an 'outlier' in terms of its usage - to most of us anyway. So its not likely to get a high % of use relative to other focal lengths, but when you need it, you do need it. The problem is that only you can decide this for yourself and if a 135 is a focal length that you already like then its likely that you will use it on an M.

Edited July 1, 2018 by pgk

[R6M6]

I have a Tele Elmar 135. I bought it because it was offered at a very good price and A/B condition.

Your questions:

a) Not very often

Animals

c) focusing is ok for me ( I use it mainly with M7 0,85 )

[Adrian Lord]

I used my Elmar 135 f4 only this afternoon, funnily enough. 

 

I hardly ever use it. Lacks contrast, lacks bite, and back-focuses. Invariably disappoints. Maybe I use it wrongly, but nevertheless, it is not Leica's finest hour. 

 

Here is one of the pics 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!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got a pristine 135mm lens to experiment with making it Thambar-like.

No need to look at the results now. Since the experiment the lens

serves as a weight to steady a stack of bills incurred during the experiment.

[Peter Kilmister]

I bought a second hand APO Telyt 135 and had hardly used it until I returned from Cherbourg to Portsmouth last week. Then it came into its own as two Cunard liners passed by; Queen Elizabeth, then Queen Mary 2, as well as a Viking cruise ship. The shot of the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth Harbour is worth the money I paid for the lens. 

If I had any idea how to attach a file that exceeds the limit then I'd post it. Sorry, just look at my Flickr site.

[Ecar]

TE 135/4 and a couple of Canons in LTM from the 50's and 60's respectively.

 

1) Rarely to very rarely

 

2) Landscape and...portraits

 

3) Only for portraits - else the RF is fine.

[TomB_tx]

From 1969 to last year I only used 135 lenses on Leica R cameras, and used just 35, 50, and 90 (and rarely 21) on my M bodies. I used the 135 mainly for wildlife and sports.

However, with the M10 I picked up a 135 TeleElmar to see if it would work for a lighter kit. I've used it for "critter" pictures with both the M10 RF and 020 EVF, and can get acceptable results with both.

However, I expect to use it rarely, as overall the 21-35-50-90 kit does what i need for travel, and with the M10 the 90 crops very well for longer shots if needed. I may try the M10/135 for grandkids sports, but I think I'd rather use it on an A7 for that use.

[luigi bertolotti]

1) Rather frequently… is a focal that I have used regularly for > 40 years… and before Leica entered in my equipment (Jupiter on Zorky… ) : and like it so much that (under typical GAS attack…) switched from Tele Elmar to a used ApoTelyt 1 month ago...

 

2) Anytime it fits… be it on portrait or, obviously, far distance subjects when I haven't with me a longer focal  (which happened just in this weekend…)

 

 

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!

 

 

3) Focusing IS someway critical… but with digital you can find easily the way, when possible, to shot 3 times with minimal movements…

Edited July 1, 2018 by luigi bertolotti

[Jeff S]

If you’re willing to wade through some other discussion, you’ll find a lot of comments, and some passion, from some 135 M users....

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/284290-farewell-to-the-135-apo-telyt-m/page-1

 

Another option to consider would be to pick up a 90 and leave your 75 home. The 90 might provide enough stretch on the long end, and get more use than a 135.

 

Only you can determine.

 

Jeff

Edited July 1, 2018 by Jeff S

[tsleica]

135 is a cool lens..when you want to use it..and for compression..and moving in..

But lugging it around traveling..and at the current APO price..well...

[adan]

1. Enough so that, if the M system didn't offer a 135, I'd have to get a different camera

 

It is my main (and almost sole) "long lens," unless dim light or cramped space absolutely requires dropping down to the 75 f/2.4, or I jump to a 400/SLR for sports/wildlife. A few years ago, I went to Europe with a 135 and 90 (and wider stuff). I ended up cropping most of the 90mm pictures to 135 framing (or throwing them away) - lesson learned.

 

2. Anything and everything. Sometimes for the reach, sometimes for the "flat wall of subject matter" perspective and graphics (see attached). Some portraits (although "situational" rather than posed or formal). Scenes on the street and at events.

 

3. Can't comment - my hot shoes are permanently occupied with 21 and 28 external finders.

 

I will say that I tend to stop down to f/6.8 (and use a higher ISO when needed), for DoF, since a 135 at a wider aperture is pushing right at the limits of what the M rangefinder can handle. I jumped to the M10 from M9 partly because the higher ISOs made the 135 @ f/6.8 even more viable than on an M9 - the lens preference took priority, the camera followed.

 

As to lugging around a 135 - better the 135, than an SLR with a zoom or 180 (the other option).

 

Below: M6, 135 Tele-Elmar, 2003 (color), M9,135 TE, 2013, Paris (B+W)

 

See also (from the trip to Europe): https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/286140-england-expects/

 

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 July 1, 2018 by adan

[Peter Kilmister]

My APO telyt 135 cost me GBP 1200. Tele Elmars are much cheaper on the used equipment market. Tele Elmars are heavier, bulkier, longer and less easy to carry around. You get what you pay for.

[Jeff S]

I was just about to add this comment from adan from an old thread.... but I see he’s chimed in here with his 135 passion!

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279375-135mm-apo-tell-me-about-it/page-2?do=findComment&comment=3408760

 

Jeff

[pico]

My favorite telephoto lens (not just a long lens) was Nikon's 180mm ƒ2.8. Their RF ƒ2.5 was good, too.

 

Today with our digital sensors I find no justification for 135mm on an M. We might best look to Leica's larger format cameras for a wide variety of capable optics. Don't stretch the M beyond its philosophical and physical intention. In art limits are important.

Edited July 1, 2018 by pico

[Michael Geschlecht]

I used my Elmar 135 f4 only this afternoon, funnily enough. 

 

I hardly ever use it. Lacks contrast, lacks bite, and back-focuses. Invariably disappoints. Maybe I use it wrongly, but nevertheless, it is not Leica's finest hour. 

 

Here is one of the pics from today.

 

Hello Adrian,

 

It might help to have your lens looked at for mismatched lens & mount, etc. A number of people who have the same lens find it pretty much the same as the Tele-Elmar. Except for its being longer & lighter. Its increased focusing throw should make the focusing more precise.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Ouroboros]

In art limits are important.

 

I'm extremely relieved your opinion isn't.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

I'm extremely relieved your opinion isn't.

 

Positing  a contrary opinion supports limits which affirms my assertion.

Edited July 1, 2018 by pico