Buying a long lens for occasional use on my Leica M10

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just returned from a ten day trip to my brother's property 150 miles north of Miami.  He has 5 acres, with a pond, lots of trees and foliage, and some very nice scenic views.  We walked around the property several times a day, as he needs to exercise his dog, and I came along to learn my M10 better.  I almost took my Nikon Df, but I was more anxious to become better with my Leica, and once I got over some silly mistakes, I was quite pleased with the results.

With all this land, there is also a good bit of wildlife that comes to visit - depending on the time and date, it includes rabbits, armadillos, ducks, alligators, hogs, and Cranes.  I've never had a problem getting nice photos of the cranes, but capturing the smaller animals was a struggle - the lenses I brought were 35 and 50, meaning a LOT of cropping.  I found this very frustrating.  I decided if I'm going to take my M10 instead of my Df, I need a longer lens.

This resulted in hours and hours of searching.  New lenses from Leica are in the multiple thousands of dollars, which I can't spend.  The lens I had in my memory from 60 years ago was a long Hector lens, apparently f/4.5, and while I did find a few (almost all on ebay) the two reviews I read about this lens were horrible.  Ken Rockwell was the most helpful to me, and he mentioned a newer 135 f/4 Elmar, which got wonderful reviews.  So, I did some more searching, and found three of them at B&H Photo in NYC.  One was $500, but the tech support person said it looked like it came from a war zone.  For $550 I could get one that was externally in better shape, but it had scratches on the rear element.  That left one more, for $650, that apparently is in like new condition, and it's now on order.

Long ago, I used to shoot 135mm lenses on my Contax rangefinder, and later on with my Nikon SP.  I gave the SP to my brother when I bought a Leica M2 but that camera unfortunately got stolen when I was off at college.  I've got the SP back now - needs a thorough cleaning, but I would prefer to shoot digital, meaning my M10.

 

My question to you guys, is do any of you have any suggestions on how to best use this 135 with an M10.  I used my rangefinder long ago on my SP, but now I've got a Visoflex which might make things easier, but using the Visoflex means removing the Leica thumb rest which I've gotten to consider almost essential.  

Maybe all this is a waste, and I should just use my Df with a long zoom.  That would be effortless.  On the other hand, if I could shoot football games with a Nikon SP and 135, I think should be able to do my new goals with the M10.  If this really was a big mistake, I can always return the lens, but I'm hoping it works out for me.  I'll copy a photo of the lens here, copied from Ken Rockwell's site.  His review can be found here:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/135mm-f4.htm

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!

[Studienkamera]

I doubt that a 135mm lens will be enough for capturing wildlife. If you already have the Nikon equipment (DSLR with tele zoom), I just would use this for wildlife.

I am in the same boat. I use the M10 as my main camera with lenses up to 90mm focal length. For wildlife, I kept my Nikon D500 with a 4/70-200mm lens. That works for the wildlife I am interested in such as pelicans.

Like you, I investigated longer tele options for the M10. One could adapt a Leica R lens such as the 4/280mm APO currently available in the classifieds. One would need to use live view or the optional EVF and a R to M adapter.  While I like the idea, I eventually decided against it for several reasons (costs; questionable support for R lenses; AF is quite useful for wildlife; some strange idea of mine that the D500 will be a future classic).

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Whatever else, it is a very good lens (although very short for anything but tame wildlife) and used for Infrared it is spectacularly good. For an experiencenced M user a 135 4.0 should present no difficulty at all focussing.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mike,

A 50mm lens gives a person an angle of coverage that a person sort of sees when they look across a room. Including part of the stuff that is away from the center part that the person is looking at.

A 90mm lens concentrates more on what was important. It removes unwanted foreground. As well as unneeded material on either side & above so that what is being looked at can be more concentrated on. While, at the same time, maintaining a more or less normal perspective.

This is 1 reason why when you go to a museum a lot of the portraits & landscapes look like they were painted with a 90mm lens. Unless you go to a Breughel exhibition. He often liked painting with a 28mm lens.

A 135mm lens is the beginning of "reaching" into the scene to isolate something of interest. Not all that much. But enough to be clearly noticeable. With a very pleasant small amount of "compression" of the scene.

The long side of a 135mm lens frame is the short side of the 90mm lens frame. The short side of a 135mm lens frame is between 1/3 & 1/2 of the long side of the 90mm frame.

Try walking around & trying different lens frames in the viewfinder to see if 135mm is the lens for you.

I'll be back.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mike,

I'm back.

Sometimes there are "complexities" when writing longer Posts all in 1 Post.

The 135mm lens you are thinking about comes apart easily for closeups or/& to be used with a Mechanical Visoflex or with an SLR. With appropriate adapters. 135mm makes a very good macro lens because it gives more space between what is being photographed & the camera than a shorter lens would. Its "sweet spot" close up is around f11. Which is the "sweet spot" of many macro lenses when they are used between 1 : 2 and 1 : 1

Another thing that is handy is to use a small, solid, table tripod, with soft, non-marking slippers & a cable release with the camera/lens. There are any number of places to use it & it allows you to use f8 at 1 Second held solidly. Instead of f4 at 1/4 Second hand held. And there is a thread on the lens barrel to mount the lens to the large ball head with.

Against a tree or a rock, against a wall inside (Soft, non-marking slippers.). On a car with the engine turned off. Or even on a table.

Against my chest it gives me + 2 stops of stability hand held.

The more you use it. The more ways you figure out how to use it. 

Since I started using 1 years ago, my full sized tripod mostly stays home.

Nice lens.

Don't forget the 12575 lens hood. More for protection against inadvertent impact & damage than for suppressing unwanted stray light. But very good for suppressing stray light also.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited July 29, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Whatever else, it is a very good lens (although very short for anything but tame wildlife) and used for Infrared it is spectacularly good. For an experiencenced M user a 135 4.0 should present no difficulty at all focussing.

In the 1960's and 1970's, for a while, my film Leicas were my main cameras, and while you'd never call me "experienced", I got so used to using the M2 and M3 that I didn't need to think about the camera, only about what I was photographing.  Now it's all topsy-turvy, as I've been using Nikon for so long the M camera felt so strange in my hands.  After ten days of using nothing but the M10, I learned zone focusing, and how to get the camera to do just what I thought I wanted.  But, and this is a big "but", even something as simple as getting a GOOD photo of a rabbit became impossible because I couldn't get close enough.  So, I did the best I could, but it meant cropping a tiny part of the image to show what I wanted.

It was a very good ten days for me, as every day I went walking around hunting for something to photograph, and every night was spent with PhotoMechanic to get the image onto my laptop, and PhotoLab3 to try to get the photo to look like what my brain "saw".

Ain't no way I'm going to get a decent photo of an alligator if another one shows up in the drainage ditch in front of my brother's property, as I know how fast they can move, and I don't want to become alligator food.  I didn't/don't want to spend multiple thousands of dollars on the latest Leica telephoto lens - spending a small fraction of that on a long Leica lens (which isn't technically a telephoto) sounded better.  I also want to take photos of pelicans hunting for fish, and my 50mm photos had the same problem as with my rabbit.  I want to fill the frame with what I'm photographing.

Thank you for your reply - becoming an experienced M user is my goal, and that will never happen if I spend most of my time behind a Df or D750.  

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!

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

.......The 135mm lens you are thinking about comes apart easily for closeups or/& to be used with a Mechanical Visoflex or with an SLR. With appropriate adapters. 135mm makes a very good macro lens because it gives more space between what is being photographed & the camera than a shorter lens would. Its "sweet spot" close up is around f11. Which is the "sweet spot" of many macro lenses when they are used between 1 : 2 and 1 : 1

Another thing that is handy is to use a small, solid, table tripod, with soft, non-marking slippers & a cable release with the camera/lens. There are any number of places to use it & it allows you to use f8 at 1 Second held solidly. Instead of f4 at 1/4 Second hand held. And there is a thread on the lens barrel to mount the lens to the large ball head with.........Don't forget the 12575 lens hood. More for protection against inadvertent impact & damage than for suppressing unwanted stray light. But very good for suppressing stray light also.......

Gee, THANK YOU, as I didn't know ANY of that.   Feel free to write a much as you want, the more the better.   I'm learning.  I had no idea the lens came apart like you describe.  I do have a small table-top tripod, and I did notice that the lens has a tripod mount built-in.  I never even considered close-up photography.  I guess I've got a lot more reading to do.  Are there any articles that describe the things you write about - or maybe you can write one yourself!!!    🙂

[MikeMyers]

29 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

......Don't forget the 12575 lens hood. More for protection against inadvertent impact & damage than for suppressing unwanted stray light. But very good for suppressing stray light also......

Thank you Michael, I just ordered one from KEH Camera.

[Michael Geschlecht]

27 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Gee, THANK YOU, as I didn't know ANY of that.   Feel free to write a much as you want, the more the better.   I'm learning.  I had no idea the lens came apart like you describe.  I do have a small table-top tripod, and I did notice that the lens has a tripod mount built-in.  I never even considered close-up photography.  I guess I've got a lot more reading to do.  Are there any articles that describe the things you write about - or maybe you can write one yourself!!!    🙂

Hello Mike,

For a start:

 All that you have to do is go to the top of this page & "click" the "WIKI" part.

Then, look to the left of the same page & "click" the "English WIKI"

Then, at the bottom of "M" cameras & lenses section, "click" the Visoflex part on the left & the other 3 Visoflex options on the same line.

Keep in mind that, in place of a Visoflex you can use the lens head with an SLR with appropriate adapters which are available.

Ask plenty of questions here.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[rramesh]

It’s not just about long lens. You also need AF, unless you are looking to capture mainly stationary subjects. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

4 hours ago, rramesh said:

It’s not just about long lens. You also need AF, unless you are looking to capture mainly stationary subjects. 

Hello rramesh,

Not always. Altho Auto Focus can make photography of a moving subject easier.

Successful Wild Life photography went on for years before the invention of Auto Focus lenses.

Practice helps before people go out into the field.

Best Regards,

Michael

[MikeMyers]

11 hours ago, Studienkamera said:

I doubt that a 135mm lens will be enough for capturing wildlife. If you already have the Nikon equipment (DSLR with tele zoom), I just would use this for wildlife.

I am in the same boat. I use the M10 as my main camera with lenses up to 90mm focal length. For wildlife, I kept my Nikon D500 with a 4/70-200mm lens. That works for the wildlife I am interested in such as pelicans.

Like you, I investigated longer tele options for the M10. One could adapt a Leica R lens such as the 4/280mm APO currently available in the classifieds. One would need to use live view or the optional EVF and a R to M adapter.  While I like the idea, I eventually decided against it for several reasons (costs; questionable support for R lenses; AF is quite useful for wildlife; some strange idea of mine that the D500 will be a future classic).

I struggled with pelicans for weeks, trying both my M10 with 50, then 90mm lenses, and then with my Nikon gear which made everything so much easier.  I've got a D750 and a Df, and mostly use my 80-200 which I bought used from KEH.  Yes, the Nikon makes it easier, but when I'm traveling, do I really want to bring all my Leica gear and all my Nikon gear?  Also, for people who are used to auto-focus, anything else probably seems impossible - but before auto-focus existed, I did just fine doing the work myself.   Yep, the D500 is something I strongly considered, but I enjoy using my strange Df much more....    but to be honest, I'd like to be able to do all these things with my Leica, even if they are more of a challenge.  

When I started looking at tele lenses, I found a gazillion of the old Hector lenses, almost all of them on ebay, and some for very low cost.  The more I read about them, the less I wanted one.  I never considered a Leica R lens, but that kind of thinking, along with autofocus, would point me back at the Nikon gear I already have.  I'm probably making a mistake by trying to get my M10 to do what the Nikon does effortlessly.  If all this works out though, maybe I'll drive down to the Florida Everglades, and see how well I do, but first I've got a lot of learning and testing and experimenting to do, until tele-photography becomes something I can do naturally, without thinking about it too much.

[Jeff S]

Another option, if you want to stick with Leica, is to get one of the SL2 bodies, which will provide many of the advantages of your Nikon system for wildlife, including IBIS, long lenses (native SL or adapted Leica M, R, S or third party lenses), etc.  The SL bodies really aren’t that much bigger or heavier than the M cameras, and balance well with long or heavy lenses.  Even the big SL 90-280 zoom feels comfortable on an SL2, and is optically stellar, with OIS. And when traveling, you can also use your other M lenses on the SL body, still with great performance and added focus aids.

Jeff

Edited July 29, 2021 by Jeff S

[105012]

The Elmar 135/4 has a long focus throw (which I like), but some prefer the shorter focus throw of the more modern 135mm lenses. These are both wonderful on an M3:

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!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mike,

In some respects photography is like fishing. When a person goes fishing, sometimes they can go spin casting & sometimes they can go fly fishing. Both are forms of fishing. Both have some differences from each other.

"M" photography is more like fly fishing. Limited in some directions. But productive within its range of usefulness.

I use a 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar, which is pretty much the same lens that you are getting. The major differences are: Yours is lighter with almost double the focusing throw (Which I would prefer to have.). You also have a tripod mount on the lens itself. Which is very nice. Especially with a large ball head. Regardless of the size of the tripod, large or tabletop.

The Tele-Elmar is about 1 inch/25mm shorter, with 1/2 or so of the focusing throw (Which is faster.). It is heavier.

Both have separable lens units that attach to pretty much the same equipment & both use pretty much of the same filters, hoods, etc.

I use the lens for a lot of photography with the camera's range/viewfinder system. When I find that system too limiting I use the lens head with appropriate adapters, bellows, etc. on a Minolta 101 which has behind the lens metering (An early form of matrix metering.) which is very useful when using a bellows for closeups. Pretty much seamless.

Like, when it is raining or snowy I use a Nikonos with a 35mm lens instead of a 35mm lens on an M3. An M3 is a really good camera for a 135mm lens that does not have goggles.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[MikeMyers]

17 minutes ago, 105012 said:

The Elmar 135/4 has a long focus throw (which I like), but some prefer the shorter focus throw of the more modern 135mm lenses. These are both wonderful on an M3:

The Elmar is a simple long focus lens, meaning it is 135mm from the lens to the film/sensor.  The more modern lenses are true telephoto lenses, with a shorter distance to get a similar result.  

If I was working, with an income, rather than retired, I suspect I'd buy the Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 lens, rather than the Elmar, but the cost difference is $4,500 compared to 1/10 of that for the Elmar.  I'm not sure how much I will end up using the lens.  That kind of photography isn't why I bought the M10 for, but I'll see where I go from here.  Apparently I've got a lot to learn about the lens I just bought - it should arrive early next week.

[johntobias]

I have the tele-elmar 135 f4 (last before apo) and focussing it is easy if you use the viewfinder magnifier or if digital, the viso    that said, Mine is up for sale right now as it is a bit short and I just got an SL2 so I'm using bigger nikon glass with an adapter for wildlife...

 

don't underestimate the tele-elmar f4...it is a fabulous lens, renders really well and is pretty good value in the leica universe        ps, anyone want mine...just shoot me a pm

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

3 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

The Elmar is a simple long focus lens, meaning it is 135mm from the lens to the film/sensor.  The more modern lenses are true telephoto lenses, with a shorter distance to get a similar result.  

If I was working, with an income, rather than retired, I suspect I'd buy the Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 lens, rather than the Elmar, but the cost difference is $4,500 compared to 1/10 of that for the Elmar.  I'm not sure how much I will end up using the lens.  That kind of photography isn't why I bought the M10 for, but I'll see where I go from here.  Apparently I've got a lot to learn about the lens I just bought - it should arrive early next week.

Hello Mike,

I think that at apertures such as f5.6, f8 & f11 there won't be that much difference among the 3 lenses in images produced. Especially hand held.

Best Regards,

Michael

[MikeMyers]

13 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

......"M" photography is more like fly fishing. Limited in some directions. But productive within its range of usefulness......

 

I think you are much more realistic than I am.  If I take my M with a lens or two, it gets to do anything I want, as best it can, or as best I can get it to do, just like my M2 with a 50 that I bought a lifetime ago.  I just work around any limitations, again, as best I can.  Maybe part of this is I really enjoy using it, and the challenge of getting it to do what I want.  I wonder at times why I'm leaving my Nikon gear at home, and taking the Leica.  It's hard to put things into words.  To me, the camera is like a tool, and I need to adapt it to what I'm trying to capture in a photograph.  After reading your posts, I've got a LONG way to go, and I'll probably never catch up, but I never saw my M2 and M3 cameras as "limitations"; to me, they were capable of just about anything I wanted to do, but I needed to learn how to get them to do so.  What needs improvement is me, not the camera gear.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

I suspect that you will already have read Mr. Rockwell's review of your 'incoming' but just in case it's new to you here's the link.

I'm sure you will be pleased to read his comments;

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/135mm-f4.htm

Have a lot of fun playing & shooting with your lens when it arrives!

Philip.