gwelland Posted August 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted August 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recall reading here about over-rotating the 135 lens on the M8 to bring up the 90mm framelines and I've found it very easy to do with my new lens and M8. Are there any unpleasant side effects from doing this? The lens rotates fine and stays locked in place even though the release button stays pushed in. There's no play whatsoever and the correct framelines do come up ok. I'm just concerned that over-rotating the lens in the mount might cause mis-alignment or bindings inside that I should worry about. Thoughts? Ultimately I'm certain I'll get a 90mm lens flange and coding as a 135/2.8 done by Leica but in the meantime this makes the lens easier to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 12, 2007 Posted August 12, 2007 Hi gwelland, Take a look here M8 & 135/3.4 APO & twist to the right. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
doubice Posted August 12, 2007 Share #2 Posted August 12, 2007 I recall reading here about over-rotating the 135 lens on the M8 to bring up the 90mm framelines and I've found it very easy to do with my new lens and M8. Are there any unpleasant side effects from doing this? Graham, Absolutely no problem, as long as the lens' focusing cam still mates properly with the camera's rangefinder. I don't have the Apo 135, but used to use the same trick with a 4/135mm Tele Elmar, without any problems. Can't do it anymore, as I had the mount milled by John Milich to accept coding and obviously, the lens has to stay put to transfer the correct info to the camera. I simply push in the preview lever just before exposure now, to key in the 90mm frame. Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mz976us Posted August 13, 2007 Share #3 Posted August 13, 2007 Hi, Just want to thank you all for this solution. I have tried it and it works perfectly. I am so excited! I was talking briefly with Jack couple days ago while acquiring my 135apo, at Keeble and Shuchat. According to him, Guy love his 135 apo and have Leica modified his lens to bring up the 90mm frameline. By the way Jack, 135apo is indeed a terrific lens. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #4 Posted August 13, 2007 It seems to me that the focusing cam would be rotated too far then, ending up slightly out of tune with the rangefinder. We are probably only talking about a degree or two, but it could make a small difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #5 Posted August 13, 2007 It seems to me that the focusing cam would be rotated too far then, ending up slightly out of tune with the rangefinder. We are probably only talking about a degree or two, but it could make a small difference. No Carsten, on 135 mm lenses the system is different. The roller does not engage the helicoid directly. The distance is transferred through a slider that has a surface that is parallel to the lensmount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #6 Posted August 13, 2007 Interesting. That is the same system as in my 1st gen 75 Lux. In fact, the cam must then be internal, and transfer its information via the flat cam. I wonder why they sometimes use the one system, sometimes the other. You would think that one would be better. Maybe its simply because the mechanisms in these lenses are so far towards the front of the lens that it is easier to have such a 'rod' sticking out the back then extend the cam to the whole length of the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #7 Posted August 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) As someone who is looking for a 135/2.8 can anyone tell me what framelines this brings up on the M8? I assume it is the 90 which then with the spectacles becomes a 135 with an EFOV of 180mm - phew! I have spoken to the lens guru Mr. Malcolm Taylor. He tells me there is not a lot to choose optically between the two versions but if it does need repairing, version one is easier to repair as the lenses are cemented with Canada Balsam as against version two whose lenses are cemented with UV activated synthetic glue, which apparently is a b*****d to get apart. The version 2 may be more susceptible to damage as the synthetic glue is very rigid and has a different rate of thermal expansion to the glass. Again there is nothing to choose between setting up the vertical alignment of the 2 versions. One is easier in one way and one is easier in the other. I think given the apparent problems with this lens, it might be sensible to buy direct from Mr. Taylor, as you know the lens will have been fully checked or perfectly repaired. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #8 Posted August 13, 2007 Knowing you, I would not recommend this lens, Wilson. It is not a bad lens in its own right, not at all, in fact, it is the same lens as the R 135/2.8, but it does show its age in contrast, micro contrast and high frequency transmission, all of which show up on the M8. It does bring up the 90 mm framlines, but the goggles create a kind of tunnel vision. And it is a bit of a lump in the camera bag. Over the years I bought two of them, and sold them again because I did not feel at home with them. All of which does not preclude the taking of excellent photographs with this lens, of course. But the 4.0, especially the later versions are very close to the Apo Telyt in performance and I would suggest you look at one of those... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #9 Posted August 13, 2007 Interesting. That is the same system as in my 1st gen 75 Lux. In fact, the cam must then be internal, and transfer its information via the flat cam. I wonder why they sometimes use the one system, sometimes the other. You would think that one would be better. Maybe its simply because the mechanisms in these lenses are so far towards the front of the lens that it is easier to have such a 'rod' sticking out the back then extend the cam to the whole length of the lens. I would think it is a good system for longer lenses, Carsten. It takes the precision part of the coupling away from the spot with the widest tolerance, i.e. the lens mount and that should improve accuracy. It takes a bit of space inside the lensmount, however, so it may not be possible to use it on smaller lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #10 Posted August 13, 2007 Knowing you, I would not recommend this lens, Wilson. It is not a bad lens in its own right, not at all, in fact, it is the same lens as the R 135/2.8, but it does show its age in contrast, micro contrast and high frequency transmission, all of which show up on the M8. It does bring up the 90 mm framlines, but the goggles create a kind of tunnel vision. And it is a bit of a lump in the camera bag. Over the years I bought two of them, and sold them again because I did not feel at home with them. All of which does not preclude the taking of excellent photographs with this lens, of course. But the 4.0, especially the later versions are very close to the Apo Telyt in performance and I would suggest you look at one of those... Jaap, Hearing what you say, I am wondering if getting a 135 lens is altogether a silly idea and after the initial phase when it is a new toy, it would go on the shelf, rarely ever to be dusted off again. MT said that he thought I might be pleasantly surprised how good the 135/2.8 was from f4 to f11 but only with that rare animal - one in good optical condition. I agreed with him, that I probably would not be able to focus it well enough for f2.8, so that is not a problem that it is quite soft at this aperture. Soft for the right image can be nice too. It will very much depend on pricing when I speak to MT again tomorrow. I don't mind paying around £250 for an occasional use lens but I am not going to pay £500+. I was hoping CV would bring out an LTM or LM 135mm cheapie, that would probably be better than 20+ year old Leica lenses. Say a modern version of the Canon or Nikkor 135/3.5 LTM lenses. All the help and advice is much appreciated. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2007 Wilson, that was what happened to my 135/2.8 and I ended up selling it. I just didn't use it. With an effective 180mm, it is not too surprising either. I think that people who are that interested in this focal length either don't buy M cameras or they keep an SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2007 The 4.0 is not much more expensive than the 2.8 and will end up in the camera bag easier. But all depends on your style of shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted August 13, 2007 Share #13 Posted August 13, 2007 Well, I bought a 135mm f4 Tele Elmar from 1965 for a mere EUR 130.00 and it is an incredible lens, and interestingly, I now use it more than my last generation 90mm f2.8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #14 Posted August 13, 2007 Well, I bought a 135mm f4 Tele Elmar from 1965 for a mere EUR 130.00 and it is an incredible lens, and interestingly, I now use it more than my last generation 90mm f2.8... Post some photographs of bread trees please..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #15 Posted August 13, 2007 When people rave about the 135/4, are they referring to this lens: Objectif LEICA Tele-Elmar 135 mm f/4 (1965-1985) or to the newer (optically identical, but what about coatings?) version which looks like the Apo-135? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted August 13, 2007 Wilson, that was what happened to my 135/2.8 and I ended up selling it. I just didn't use it. With an effective 180mm, it is not too surprising either. I think that people who are that interested in this focal length either don't buy M cameras or they keep an SLR. Err, not really. Some folks just want to round out the outfit with a long lens for landscape work where the 90 just doesn't quite cut it. I have a full D2X outfit that I enjoy but I much prefer a rangefinder outfit for travel/landscapes, particularly where air travel is involved. Ever wondered who that guy shooting M8 landscapes on a tripod with either a cable release or using the timer is? That would be me I would agree that for most handheld M shooting it's really pushing what's practical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted August 13, 2007 Share #17 Posted August 13, 2007 When people rave about the 135/4, are they referring to this lens: Objectif LEICA Tele-Elmar 135 mm f/4 (1965-1985) or to the newer (optically identical, but what about coatings?) version which looks like the Apo-135? that's the one I have, and love. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #18 Posted August 13, 2007 Erm, which one? Both are referenced in the post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 13, 2007 Share #19 Posted August 13, 2007 that's the one I have, and love. Peter, Some people have found the 135/f4, fiendishly difficult to focus and frame on the M8 with its .68 finder and given the EFOV of 180mm. How have you found it or do you have the eyes of a hawk? I would prefer to go the TE f4 route rather than the slightly Heath Robinson spectacles route simply for ease of carrying and weight but only if focusing/framing all the time accurately is achievable. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2007 Share #20 Posted August 13, 2007 Actually, Wilson, with the Megaperls 1.35 magnifier it is as easy as any 90 or 75, due to the long throw of the focus ( I have the older version, not the new mount) rather easier than some. The 90 mm framelines are quite good enough, if you keep well within them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.