Need 135mm lens option advise for M10 and SL2-S adapted bodies

[LraStn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm a wedding photographer and I'm transitioning to all Leica from a mix of Canon and Leica in recent years. I have M10 and SL2-S bodies and lenses, and an M to L adapter.

I need a lens with long reach for some of the very long church shots. That brought me to looking at the 135mm options. I'm a bit lost as to the IQ differences. The 3.4 M is tempting, but for these shots I usually have ample light so 4.0 might be fine and is much cheaper. I'm open to using a 2.8 R with adapter. that amount of extra light would matter from 4.0 to 2.8. I've read that focus can be an issue on the 2.8 lenses though and that's why they are so cheap. I do have the amazing EVF and magnification on the SL2-S to help. 

Down the road I will probably get a 90-280 Vario SL, but right now I don't want to spend $5k+ for a heavy lens I don't actually want to pick up/carry around. Plus I generally prefer the look of M lenses. 

I'd love some input if anyone can offer pros and cons on the 3.4/4.0M vs 2.8 R. Would love to see pics if anyone has any I'll also plan to test these myself as much as possible in the near future. 

 

Thanks! 

 

 

 

 

[a.noctilux]

I use for long some units of Tele-Elmar 135mm(link to Wiki)

Nothing to complain.

If you do some google, you may see some pics.

have a read here

or here with KR !

[spydrxx]

I've used the M 135/4 Tele-Elmar,  the 135/3.4 APO Telyt, 135/2.8 Elmarit, and the R -135. All good lenses with color saturation. The goggled 2.8 IMHO was a beast weight wise. The 135/4 is a good lens, but an old design. I eventually settled on the even older Elmar, it was cheap, easy to use, and important to me had a removable head for Visoflex or bellows work.

[lct]

If sharpness at full aperture is a prerequisite the M 135/3.4 apo has no competition among M and R 135mm lenses. Otherwise there are two kinds or 135/2.8. The M one with goggles which is sometimes difficult to focus on rangefinders and the R one that will work in LV/EVF mode only. Both have a similar optical design. They can be cheap and are very good lenses indeed. 

[pgk]

I have the 135/4 but in the E46 configuration (the last version of the f/4 lens before the change to the f/3.4). Its a good compromise between mechanical accuracy (earlier versions can have problematic focus - I've had several) and cost - its around 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the 3.4 although it isn't a common version of the f/4 and may take some finding. Imagewise its fine, and for my somewhat limited use will keep me happy for a long time. The f/3.4 is probably better wide open but the f/4 isn't a poor performer at all (I have 24"x16" prints from this lens and my M9 which have sold well enough in a gallery).

Edited May 21, 2021 by pgk

[luigi bertolotti]

M10 and SL... have you the EVF for M ? If so, I think that the classic (E39) Tele Elmar for M can be the best choice as value for money... as pgk said, it can be a bit risky with RF at f4, whilst, once correctly focused, it's anyway an excellent lens (find a good one of course, and have it CLAed) : I added an ApoTelyt 135 to my set and the most significant advantage I felt was indeed the RF focusing (but have an M240... and use its EVF only when strictly needed) ; no experience at all with R lenses, though... you could simply decide that the camera for 135  is the SL... probably its EVF is even better than the M one.

Edited May 21, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Comparing the e46 and E39 versions of the f4 I was not able to see the slightest difference in the images.  Both had been cla'd and the images were  identical, the framing, the color, the sharpness, despite being different mechanically and manufactured many years apart.  The Leica rep, seeing my E39 said: it's so close to the f3.4 that he wouldn't upgrade for the slight difference.  

 

 

[pgk]

6 hours ago, darylgo said:

Comparing the e46 and E39 versions of the f4 I was not able to see the slightest difference in the images.  Both had been cla'd and the images were  identical, the framing, the color, the sharpness, despite being different mechanically and manufactured many years apart.  The Leica rep, seeing my E39 said: it's so close to the f3.4 that he wouldn't upgrade for the slight difference.

The f/4 versions are the same optically but the mechanics are quite different. The E39 version can be difficult to get to work accurately with the rangefinder and there are threads discussing this on the forum. Apparently it is not just a simple adjustment but may requires additional work like shims too (from memory)? The E46 probably addressed this by using a better mechanical design but was soon usurped by the f/3.4 version.

[luigi bertolotti]

39 minutes ago, pgk said:

The f/4 versions are the same optically but the mechanics are quite different. The E39 version can be difficult to get to work accurately with the rangefinder and there are threads discussing this on the forum. Apparently it is not just a simple adjustment but may requires additional work like shims too (from memory)? The E46 probably addressed this by using a better mechanical design but was soon usurped by the f/3.4 version.

After some adjustments... my one has a permanent strip of scotch tape onto the cam... 😉.. DIY but good... I got the APO mainly for an accidental combination of GAS and  trustability of the seller... 😉   (kept theTE for the usual rule about leitz lenses... and because its lenshead is an excellent macro-set component)

Edited May 22, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[adan]

I tend to agree with most of the above, but here are my additional takes:

135 Apo-Telyt - truly brilliant lens with one very bad habit that has lead me to always discard them rapidly (I tried one again just last Dec/Jan. - it's gone already). A massive tendency to flare when a bright light source is just outside the image area. This is not "glass" flare, but reflections off the inside of the lens barrel or the camera body. And no lens hood I've tried has prevented it. It would take a Hollywood-style adjustable-crop rectangular matte-box to fix.

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!

Doesn't show up with the sun (or other bright lights) behind me, but in a wedding situation where there may be bright windows in all directions, or stage/altar spotlights? Could be a serious minefield.

On an SL/SL2/SL2-S, the different internal body configuration might help - never tried it. Definitely the lightest-weight at 456g.

135 Elmarit-M/R - assuming the same era, these have identical optics in either mount. The most "recent" (post 1975) M/R version is supposed to have slightly more clarity. Compared to the other Leitz/Leica 135s, they are a bit dull and not quite as sharp, but I'd rank them above most f/2.8 or slower 135s from anyone else. Maybe 4th-best ever made (behind the APO, the TE varieties (until stopped down) and the Japanese Zeiss/Contax 135 Sonnar f/2.8 MM/AE). I've used the R version on occasion, but the size and weight of the goggled M versions is just ludicrous for an M lens. And the viewfinder (magnified world seen through the 90mm frameline) is very very imprecise - the effective framing is about for a 180mm. Expect to crop often.

135 Tele-Elmar(-M) - What I always end up with. Very crisp at any aperture (but f/5.6 improves over f/4 slightly). Very little tendency to flare (although the last E46 version mentioned above improves on the E39 versions - even better baffles inside). I use the E39 myself, slightly lighter by 50g as well as just nestling in my hand more ergonomically.

I switched from M9 to M10 mostly for my 135 TE - higher ISOs, slightly higher magnification, better focus precision (the lens itself is spot-on).

1988 Tele-Elmar E39, f/4.8. Now that you know the name of the guy on the left - "find Lewis" in the full frame on the right.

And another, perhaps more "wedding-oriented" in content.

Métro-Grenelle, Paris, 135 TE E39, f/4.8, 2013, M9 B&W conversion

Edited May 22, 2021 by adan

[pippy]

I've owned the goggled f2.8 version and the E39 f4 versions. As I don't use 135 often the APO wasn't on my list so I can't speak for that lens.

The particular f2.8 example I had suffered from focus-shift to such an extent that it was unusable. I'm not sure if I just had a bad copy (although it was bought from a very reputable London dealership) so it had to go back. It was also, as has been mentioned, an absolute beast of a thing. This wouldn't have been an issue for me but for someone who needs to carry a lot of kit it might be worth noting.

As a replacement I bought an early E39 f4 version (left hand side pic in the link in post #2) and, mirroring comments from others above, it has proved to be a superb performer. I have experienced no focus problems at any aperture and it really is as sharp as I could possibly need. Leica, themselves, must also have been happy with it's optical design - it was, after all, designed by Walter Mandler - as it remained in production for 34 years!

It's a funny-looking thing which, some say, is why it isn't as popular as it deserves and a large reason it can be found so cheaply. With this last point in mind I thought it prudent to seek-out the best example available at the time of looking because the difference between a beater and a near-mint example was almost insignificant (in Leica terms). I also tend to like clip-on hoods over the slide-out style and the proper hood for these earlier lenses can be found from all the usual suspects for very little outlay.

Philip.

Edited May 22, 2021 by pippy

[lct]

2 hours ago, adan said:

A massive tendency to flare when a bright light source is just outside the image area. This is not "glass" flare, but reflections off the inside of the lens barrel or the camera body. And no lens hood I've tried has prevented it. It would take a Hollywood-style adjustable-crop rectangular matte-box to fix.

I wish it were the only Leica lens like that but cupping a hand around the lens (pic) suffices to fix the problem generally. Easier to do with an EVF than with an RF though admittedly. 

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!

[a.noctilux]

I now understand why the hood 12575 is so long and efficient regarding flare on Tele-Elmar 135mm.

[Danner]

I have the old Tele-Elmar 135/4, and it is a sharp and contrasty lens for sure.  Available at bargain-basement prices too.  As a film-only Leica shooter, careful focus is a must, and focus bracketing is worth an extra frame, or three.  YMMV with a digital camera.

I don't think Leica ever made a bad 135mm.

Cheers.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Another thumbs up for the Tele-Elmar, I bought mine cheap, because the seller really downplayed the lens because imperfections on the exterior, for a 50+ year old lens it wasn't bad at all. The images were very good, but some how lacking. I sent it to YYE for a CLA, came back and it is fantastic. This is the best 135 I have used,I have had a Leica Hektor, Nikon, Zeiss Sonnar and Canon 135s. 

M8 135 Tele-Elmar

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 May 22, 2021 by tommonego@gmail.com

[pippy]

This is a very informative and nicely-in-depth-but-not-too-tiring review of the f4 version and includes a brief comparison with the APO which replaced it in '98.

It covers MTF curves; version history; removable head unit (for use with Visoflex as a Macro set-up); some examples and a fair bit more;

https://casualphotophile.com/2020/10/12/leitz-tele-elmar-135mm-f-4-review/

Philip.

Edited May 22, 2021 by pippy

[adan]

Good article - but already in post #2.

[LarsHP]

On 5/21/2021 at 4:01 PM, LraStn said:

I'm a wedding photographer and I'm transitioning to all Leica from a mix of Canon and Leica in recent years. I have M10 and SL2-S bodies and lenses, and an M to L adapter.

I need a lens with long reach for some of the very long church shots. That brought me to looking at the 135mm options. I'm a bit lost as to the IQ differences. The 3.4 M is tempting, but for these shots I usually have ample light so 4.0 might be fine and is much cheaper. I'm open to using a 2.8 R with adapter. that amount of extra light would matter from 4.0 to 2.8. I've read that focus can be an issue on the 2.8 lenses though and that's why they are so cheap. I do have the amazing EVF and magnification on the SL2-S to help. 

Down the road I will probably get a 90-280 Vario SL, but right now I don't want to spend $5k+ for a heavy lens I don't actually want to pick up/carry around. Plus I generally prefer the look of M lenses. 

I'd love some input if anyone can offer pros and cons on the 3.4/4.0M vs 2.8 R. Would love to see pics if anyone has any I'll also plan to test these myself as much as possible in the near future. 

 

Thanks!

Since you want a "long lens" and consider a 90-280mm down the road, I understand it that it could be other focal lengths than 135mm. I have two 90mm M lenses and no plans of getting a 135mm since the difference appears to small to me. I complement my 90mm with a small and light 180mm f/4 lens; the Voigtländer 180mm Apo-Lanthar SL. It uses 49mm filters and weighs 485 grams. Optically one of the best I have ever seen. It's a buy it and never sell it kind of lens.

It's out of production long ago and came in a few SLR mounts (not including Leica R as far as I know). An adapter will be needed for both your M or SL cameras. One thing that may put you off is focus direction: It goes the Nikon-way instead of all other(?) brands.

[wda]

I will muddy the waters by adding another option, viz the Leica 135mm f/4 Elmar. I have this lens and its successor and like both lenses. Here is an article I wrote last year https://david2008.photium.com/a-gem-from-the-past 

Edited May 22, 2021 by wda

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Good article - but already in post #2.

Oops!

Thank you, Andy, and apologies to Arnaud!

I had seen the first link in post #2 but missed the later entries. Sorry for the duplication.

Philip.