Jump to content

135 f2.8 Elmarit


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, lct said:

Bulky indeed but very good lens on digital. Just make sure that its goggles are removable if you intend to use it on mirrorless cameras.

Hello LCT,

Why would a person want to remove the goggles if they were to use the lens on a mirrorless camera? If a person does what is necessary to have the goggles removed: Then the lens will need to be reconfigured for use on a range/viewfinder camera at a later date.

Best Regards,

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Why would a person want to remove the goggles if they were to use the lens on a mirrorless camera? If a person does what is necessary to have the goggles removed: Then the lens will need to be reconfigured for use on a range/viewfinder camera at a later date.

Pity i have not my 135/2.8 here otherwise i would show you how it looks on my CL. Those goggles are inappropriate there at best. Another solution is to acquire an R version of the lens but the Leica adapter for R lenses is expensive so i'd rather remove the goggles if this is possible w/o butchering the lens. Not the case on mine BTW.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a 1961 135mm F4 elmar on the CL. (Aftermarket lens hood).  It is a very lightweight option, and renders beautifully. Great for portraits, too. I have seen them on ebay in the $200 price range.

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 by ropo54
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Rob,

And don't forget that the 135mm, F4, Elmar is a good lens for normal distances, landscapes, closeups & so on. It will give images on par with its contemporary counterparts when using medium apertures.

By the way, you might also try a lens hood 12575 in place of the 12585 lookalike. The 12575 might cut out a bit more stray light in some circumstances.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Rob,

And don't forget that the 135mm, F4, Elmar is a good lens for normal distances, landscapes, closeups & so on. It will give images on par with its contemporary counterparts when using medium apertures.

Best Regards,

Michael

Thanks, Michael. Yes, I could not agree more.   Here are some shots taken with it on my SL.

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!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original poster:

Bottom line, the Leica 135 f/2.8 is a 1960s lens (last optics design update, 1968, 51 years ago). In that era it was the best 135 f/2.8 ever. In later eras it was the 2nd-best ever (The Zeiss Sonnar f/2.8 for the Japanese Yashica/Contax system surpassed it at larger apertures and for contrast).

(By the 1970s, 135s had fallen a bit out of favor as tele-zooms and f/2.8 180s hit the market - Leica never developed their f/2.8 further. Nor did they pursue a 135 f/2.0, as did Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, etc.).

It fits in with other Leitz pre-APO, pre-ASPH short teles. Such as the 90 f/2, Tele-Elmarits and the non-APO 180s. At f/2.8, a lowish-contrast image with overlaid "sharpness" and "softness," and visible red-green color fringing, especially in slightly de-focused areas. Stopped down to f/5.6 or better, it just about matches the best of the Leica f/4 135 lenses. It doesn't ever get as "clean, clear and contrasty" as the APO-Telyt f/3.4 - it stays a bit muddy (although the contrast can be increased in post-processing, and its "Gaussian" blur sharpens fairly well). It has the greenish-cyan tint favored by Walter Mandler, rather than the pinker color of post-1990 Leica lenses. Quite nice smooth bokeh.

The R lenses were the same glass in different mount. There were 3 versions, 1963, 1964 and 1968 - minor changes in IQ.

Attached - 135 Elmarit-M at f/2.8, M9, crop for 100% pixels, and full-frame.

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting picture to choose for years I made a living as an ophthalmic (eye) photographer, my choice on film was a 100 Micro Nikkor.  So this is a picture I relate to.

With the CL I have 2 short telephotos, a 90 f2.8 Elmarit and a 85 f2 Nikkor, on film I liked the Nikkor better with the CL the Elmarit. My main gripe with the 85 is the rotating f stop ring, beside f2 being so soft it is useless, sharpens up at f2.8 and is a fine lens after that. 

So I guess I was looking at something longer, trying to keep the CL kit f2.8 or faster, but an f4 maybe an alternative. Had a 135 4.5 Hektor (M mount) on film for a while and never really liked it. Then there is the 70-200 Panasonic, just much pricier than what I have been talking about.

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just sold my 135 2.8 elmarit on ebay (£240) it has removeable goggles so perfect on CL or M cameras...good results but  I'm more into wides , Have the 11-23 and 35.......my only Tele now is a 90 Elmarit M (reasonably new) and I love it...plenty long enough with the crop factor for me.

 

If I was going to look at long Telephotos, perhaps the CL isn't the camera for them but hey, a reasonable L mount AUTOFOCUS 200mm may be coming from sigma so that may be an option

 

Edited by johntobias
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could consider Tele-Elmar 4/135 (1965-1998). I use mine for landscape at infinity or with bellows for macro. It performs well at infinity.When I get an adapter for my TL I plan to use it there as well. Maybe try something other than infinity.

It will cost about 30% more than the 2,8/135. I have not tried other 135mm, but I did read a lot about them before I made my choice. It seems this one gives you more for the money than the others.

 

Then there is the Apo-Telyt 3,4/180 (1975-1998). I bought this later, and with my use I could live with this one instead of a 135mm or both. It is very good wide open at infinity. Will cost about twice of a 2,8/135, but you have to add the cost of an R-M adapter.

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

Thanks for your insites. 

Wide is also interesting I have a Nikon adaptor and have used my 11-16 f2.8 Tokina, which is a really good lens. Probably looking at the 16 f1.8 Sigma when it comes out or the 14 if it is rectilinear.

The 70-200 Panasonic looks good, but won't be the fist to buy one. I find on my Nikon an 80-200 zoom fixed f stop is fine for when I want a telephoto. Always wondering about older glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2019 at 7:26 PM, lct said:

Pity i have not my 135/2.8 here otherwise i would show you how it looks on my CL. Those goggles are inappropriate there at best. Another solution is to acquire an R version of the lens but the Leica adapter for R lenses is expensive so i'd rather remove the goggles if this is possible w/o butchering the lens. Not the case on mine BTW.

The 135/2.8 M has a removable lenshead, I have used mine on the short focussing mount for Visoflex, plus a Viso to Nikon F adapter on Nikon film and digital , and for evf cameras have used a Nikon to m4/3, then Sony, and now Fuji adapters.  Its heavy, but very nice! And I can 'restore' it to goggles for use on the M3 when I want.

Gerry 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To have a telephoto lens for my CL was my goal. Found a 200mm f4 Canon FD for $20, did some preliminary testing. Below at f5.6 ISO 400 on the CL. Looks like a decent place holder lens. The lilacs in front of the tree sort of jumbles the picture.

 

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 Hektor 135mm f/4.5 and Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8. Both make lovely photographs on both my CL and other Leica bodies. I also have the Elmar-R 180mm f/4, which is very small and light for a 180mm lens and produces beautiful images. It was also one of my least expensive R lens purchases. 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon 200 was a impulse purchase at $20, the picture show looked better on my screen, thought I had a setting in PS for the correct size from RAW, but had to shrink it, so messing with jpegs. I thought about the 180 but requires the R adapter which doubled the price. I had the 200 for several years with film Canons and have some very good photos with it. As I said earlier I am inclined to wait for the 70-200 Panasonic/Leica. Then get permission from my wife as I have spent more on cameras in the last 6 months than for the 10 years before.

Tom

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...