Jump to content

Tele-Elmar 1:4/135 vs Apo-Telyt R 1:3,4/180


Nordvik

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got myself a used 3,4/180 R and did a test with a 4,0/135 at f=5,6.

The 180mm is better when they are scaled up to the same size, but should there not be a bigger difference?

180mm is a Apo-Telyt and a 10 year newer design (1965 vs 1975, as I understand it).

 

(upscaled and exported from LR 6 without any other adjustments)

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rather difficult posed question to answer exactly. But what I remember from a test of the 3.4/180mm R is that testers found it to be very strong in penetrating through foggy atmospheres, so that would be the second image here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tele-Elmar 4/135 is very good.

Someone (or internet myth ?) said that it's "Apo-corrected" but not marked as "apo".

 

I use some Tele-Elmar 4/135 for decades along with Apo-Telyt-R 3.4/180 on Kodachrome and sensors, never saw that the 135 is better or worse than 180.

 

Just for long range use, the "haze" (humidity/dust in air not seen with nake eyes) can diminish contrast.

 

I have some slides of architectural details with the "two" (R and M), I'm not able when projected to tell which one taken with which lens.

 

The best IQ from the two is when fully open, as my experiences.

 

Side note:

Some old lenses need to be cleaned or adjusted to be "best as new",

or some glass can be altered when aging...

Edited by a.noctilux
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very difficult to guess which result comes from which lens.

 

Looking at the antenna on the roof and the wire line fence I'd say No. 2 is the Apo-Telyt-R. 

 

If one would zoom into the pictures very close I think the Tele-Elmar would show rather strong CA on this details and on the tree-leaves; the Apo-Telyt much less. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well then, because the 135 image has been cropped, it seems reasonable that the 180 image is better. You expected it to be much better, but remember that the Tele-Elmar is a very good lens that still competes not bad at all with the new APO 135/3.4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-crop pictures. First 135mm, second 180mm.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we saw is "moiré" not meaning that the Tele-Elmar 135 is better or worse than 180.

 

I understand now that what we are talking about is only "digital artifacts" and nothing wrong with the two good lenses here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying there is anything wrong with any of my examples of the lenes. I was just a little bit disappointed with the 180mm.

The 180mm with M10, EVF, tripod foot and quick release is 1685g (just M10, 180mm and adapter is 1530g).

135mm (and sunshade) with M10 with quick release is 1255g (1215g without quick release).

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both these lenses are phenomenal. And both hit their peak at f/5.6. As lct says, at f/4 or f/3.4, the APO should win out more obviously - and you will start to see some red color fringing with the "almost-but-not-quite-APO" 135.

 

I used the 180 APO-Telyt on a Canon 5D precisely because I could just leave it at f/3.4 all the time (and avoid having to focus and then manually stop down afterwards) and get amazing performance. I do journalism, so DoF is mostly irrelevent to me - I just want the main subject in focus and sharp.

 

The 135mm TE gets a bigger performance boost stopping down that extra stop. I shoot it at f/5.6 unless I really need f/4 for dimmer light (and accept slightly less quality).

 

As to the age of the designs, I won't say Leitz just got lucky in 1965 - but Walter Mandler made the best possible use of the glasses available then, to produce the Tele-Elmar. He was aiming to beat the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f/4 - and did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did another test this morning. More light. First 180 at 3,4 and 5,6:

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

180 at 8,0:

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then 135 at 4,0 and 5,6:

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

135 at 8,0:

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both. Now my 2 cents....

 

In terms of resolution they are close but 180 resolves more (obviously due to longer FL, also due to better CA correction) but difference in FL is not huge. I mainly use 180 now since I can use it with 2XAPO and have a flexible setup till 360mm, whereas 135 tele-elmar is limited. Since I use them on digital, I get to crop easily and I can reach 135FOV from cropping much lighter 90mm macro-elmar M.

 

In my digital usage, I have come to believe that useful FLs should 2X apart and not 1.5X apart. This is the reason my 135mm tele-elmar is now gathering dust even if I have no issues with IQ.

Edited by jmahto
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Tele-Elmar is better in close-ups? I use it much more for close-ups and macro’s (with the separated head on a visoflex iii) than at infinity and have a lot more bite than what I see here (if ever you can compare reliably on the internet)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like either for close up. 90mm macro elmar M with extension is lighter and better choice. If you insist on 135mm or 180 then there are many third party cheap SLR lenses that do better job. My favorites are 180 Lanthar f4(way too sharp at close distances for my taste sometimes) and 135 henxanon f3.2 (cheap lens and lovely rendering, it is in my avatar).

Edited by jmahto
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...