Buying a long lens for occasional use on my Leica M10

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's an awesome collection of photos.  Any doubts of my new lens have been erased.  Several were incredible timing, such as the giraffe and the bird!  You (and your wife) "did good"!

(Off-topic thought - if I were you, I'd put my name in the lower right corner of the images, to lesson the chance of other people "stealing" the images without your permission.  I get emails every few days with awesome photos, and there never is any indication of who took them.  A watermark isn't perfect, but it helps.)

 

Based on everything I've learned recently, the tele-Elma is available at very low prices, compared to other Leica branded lenses.  I should have bought one years ago.  I had a similar Nikon 135mm lens on my Nikon SP rangefinder camera, and for many years it was my "go-to" lens for a lot of my photography.  I didn't realize back then (160's) that it was difficult to focus, as it was all I knew.  When I upgraded to my M2, it took a long time for me to afford more lenses.  Lenses were affordable back then, but I was going off to college and didn't have enough spending money.  All of this came to an end for many years when Nikon released the Nikon F.  My dream camera back then, which I couldn't afford, was an Alpa.  Oh, and thanks to your Lion Photo, I had a long talk with a friend for a few hours last night, and I'm likely to become a contributing member to the Miami Zoo, meaning I can go there as often as I wish.  Thank you again!

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

Oops, either I am thoroughly confused, or my new-to-me TeleElmar is.

I tried to take photos this afternoon and evening, and they are very out of focus.  I set the lens to infinity, as the skyline I was photographing is miles away from me.  I got blurry images.

I put on my 90mm Summicron as a test, and it worked fine.

I put the 135 tele-elmar back on, and played with the focus ring until the image was reasonably sharp, but the distance scale on the camera says it was focused at 20 feet.

I had noticed when I turned the aperture ring to f/4, with a tiny amount of pressure the "lens" assembly unscrewed from the focusing assembly.  

The lens looked brand new, as if nobody had ever used it.  The S/N is #2420645.

The Len is scratched inside with what looks like "45R" towards the front, and "60" towards the rear (see photo).

There is a small piece of masking tape inside the lens housing marked "2420645", with the number 4 scratched into the housing next to it.

(All of these markings are covered up when the front lens component is screwed into the housing.)  

Is there something I don't yet know about how to set the lens?  Is it somehow adjusted for use on a visoflex, that is incorrect when the lens is assembled to mount directly on the camera? It's not even close - nobody could use the lens like this.  I still have an option of returning it to B&H, but I suspect there is something that  I'm unaware of yet that needs to be adjusted.

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!

[jaapv]

The numbers are there to match it to its barrel, but I don't know what they mean. Look in the inside of the barrel, the lens number should be scratched in there. The lens is not meant to be used on the Visoflex with the barrel in place. It unscrews to use the lens head on the bellows,  and there are a number of rings and a focusing module for various uses. If the image is sharp in the EVF it will be sharp on the sensor. Use focus peaking and/or magnification to attain critical focus. 

I'll have a look at mine next week, at the moment it is all boxed up to be offered in the forum classifieds and sitting at my work, and I am off until Wednesday.

[MikeMyers]

You are spot-on.  I did as you suggest, using "Live View" and got a nice sharp image.  But the lens says it was focused at 20 feet.

On the other hand, my rangefinder says I am perfectly focused when the lens is set to "infinity", but the image is a total blur, not even close to being in focus.

I'm lost, but I guess I can just send it back to B&H if this isn't something I can adjust.

[jaapv]

It is quite possible that somebody screwed it into the barrel of another one which could explain this effect. Lens head and barrel were matched at the factory. Are you sure you are screwing it in all the way?

[MikeMyers]

Oops, I see I'm not the only one with this problem:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170152-adjusting-the-tele-elmar-4135-for-the-m9/

 

Yes, I screw it in until it has a hard "stop".  I don't yet understand the other post I linked to, but I suspect that may be my issue as well.....

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but that is hardly a solution for a problem of the magnitude you are describing. The lens should be spot-on on infinity (OK, maybe very slightly out on an adapter, but minimally.)

[MikeMyers]

 What I'm describing sounds impossible.  If I want to photograph something a mile away, it is sharp when the focus ring is set to 20 feet, but totally blurry when the lens is set to infinity.  That means the glass needs to be about 1/4" further away from the camera when the focus ring is turned to infinity.  That is completely illogical.  Thanks to the numbers, I know the lens housing is matched to the lens.  I know the range finder is perfect when I adjust the lens to infinity.  But what you suggested using live-view or an EVF makes no sense, that the image is only sharp when I move the glass almost 1/4" further out!  That's insane.

I've already got a 90 Summicron.  Maybe I should just give up on this lens and use the 90, unless B&H is willing to fix this lens, and has the ability to do so.

I read enough of those other suggestions to know it's way beyond my skills, and I'd end up with a worthless 135mm paperweight, and I'd still be out my $650.

[adan]

21 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

What I'm describing sounds impossible.

Why impossible?

From the serial number, which you confirm is the same in both the focus mount (inside) and the lens head (front engraved ring), it may have been 50 years or so since it left the factory.

My guess is that sometime in those 50 years, someone has disassembled it, and then failed to reassemble its rather complicated, fiddly and archaic construction correctly.

- You've already discovered that the front unscrews for mounting on a mechanical Visoflex (an intentional "feature").

- If you look closely at the focus ring, it has three 1mm set-screws spaced at 120° around the circumference to lock the external ring (knurling and focus scale) to the inner focusing mechanism. Plus multiple other set-screws to hold the outer barrel layers to the inner layers. Some of those could also have been reinstalled out of position.

- This version of the Tele-Elmar uses a spring-loaded "push-rod" to connect the focus cam deep inside to the camera's rangefinder roller - those are a bit notorious for becoming jammed or sticky with degraded lubricant, and/or a worn-out spring, and not "tracking" correctly with the actual glass movement. Look inside the back of the lens at the top, and you will see the trapezoidal brass tip of the focusing push-rod peaking out....

\___/

Bottom line - the original mechanical construction of this lens is more akin to "1960s house plumbing" than to the way Leica puts lenses together today - Leica redesigned the barrel completely in 1992 to conform to their modern methods - compare below, right vs. left.

I would return it for a refund, and seek a better-adjusted copy of this otherwise-excellent lens elsewhere.

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!

 

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 What I'm describing sounds impossible.  If I want to photograph something a mile away, it is sharp when the focus ring is set to 20 feet, but totally blurry when the lens is set to infinity.  That means the glass needs to be about 1/4" further away from the camera when the focus ring is turned to infinity.  That is completely illogical.  Thanks to the numbers, I know the lens housing is matched to the lens.  I know the range finder is perfect when I adjust the lens to infinity.  But what you suggested using live-view or an EVF makes no sense, that the image is only sharp when I move the glass almost 1/4" further out!  That's insane.

I've already got a 90 Summicron.  Maybe I should just give up on this lens and use the 90, unless B&H is willing to fix this lens, and has the ability to do so.

I read enough of those other suggestions to know it's way beyond my skills, and I'd end up with a worthless 135mm paperweight, and I'd still be out my $650.

Return it. Plenty of better copies of this lens for sale. I think that somebody took the barrel apart and assembled it incorrectly.

[MikeMyers]

11 hours ago, adan said:

Why impossible?

From the serial number, which you confirm is the same in both the focus mount (inside) and the lens head (front engraved ring), it may have been 50 years or so since it left the factory.

My guess is that sometime in those 50 years, someone has disassembled it, and then failed to reassemble its rather complicated, fiddly and archaic construction correctly.

- You've already discovered that the front unscrews for mounting on a mechanical Visoflex (an intentional "feature").

- If you look closely at the focus ring, it has three 1mm set-screws spaced at 120° around the circumference to lock the external ring (knurling and focus scale) to the inner focusing mechanism. Plus multiple other set-screws to hold the outer barrel layers to the inner layers. Some of those could also have been reinstalled out of position.

- This version of the Tele-Elmar uses a spring-loaded "push-rod" to connect the focus cam deep inside to the camera's rangefinder roller - those are a bit notorious for becoming jammed or sticky with degraded lubricant, and/or a worn-out spring, and not "tracking" correctly with the actual glass movement. Look inside the back of the lens at the top, and you will see the trapezoidal brass tip of the focusing push-rod peaking out....

\___/

Bottom line - the original mechanical construction of this lens is more akin to "1960s house plumbing" than to the way Leica puts lenses together today - Leica redesigned the barrel completely in 1992 to conform to their modern methods - compare below, right vs. left.

I would return it for a refund, and seek a better-adjusted copy of this otherwise-excellent lens elsewhere.

I called B&H half an hour ago, and the person I spoke to suggested (insisted) that I call Leica at 800 222-0118 and leave a message.  They will presumably call me back fairly soon, and I can explain to them what is going on.  The words that I highlighted above. make me think that those three (almost invisible) screws would allow me to move the focusing cylinder until it is lined up at "infinity" when the lens itself is focused at infinity.  Interestingly, the person I spoke to knew exactly which lens I bought, as it came in the original plastic cylinder, in the original box, and looked brand new.  He told me I had 30 days from the purchase date in which I could return it - but he felt I should talk to Leica before returning it to B&H, which I will do.

Yeah, "impossible" wasn't the best word I could have used - I never considered that someone could have re-assembled the lens incorrectly, which now sounds most likely.

 

Not going to do this yet, but is it reasonable for me to remove those three tiny screws, and rotate the lens focusing ring to where it belongs?  You wrote "it has three 1mm set-screws spaced at 120° around the circumference to lock the external ring (knurling and focus scale) to the inner focusing mechanism".  If they are just set screws, and if I could re-orient the focusing ring, then lock it back in place, that might help, but it there's still the issue of the range-finder focusing not agreeing with the digital focusing using live-view...

The fellow at B&H seemed to be confused about something I considered obvious - he was concerned that I'm taking a 1960's lens and using it on a digital M10.  All my Leica lenses are from the 60's, and they all seem to focus just fine except this one, so I think that's a non-issue.........

[MikeMyers]

Maybe one of you can explain this.

The image at the bottom left is my 135 f/4 TeleElmar, with the focus ring set at infinity.  The lens component is all the way back into the housing, and the resulting photo will be  very blurry.  The image at the right is after I manually turn the focus ring to 20 feet.

When I focus using the digital live-view, I can bring the image into good focus, and can take a sharp photo. But if I look at the photo, it now says on the focus ring that I am focused at 20 feet, but more importantly, the lens has moved further out from the housing.

If my mind is thinking correctly about this, when the lens is set to infinity, I have a "back focus" problem, and I need to move the lens further out to capture a sharp image.

First, here is a photo copied from eBay showing a 135mm lens for sale.  If you look at the lens, you'll see that the "lens" part of the full lens is all the way down into the housing, just like my photo of my lens at the left, where I get a blurry picture.  Forget all the numbers, and only consider that when I move the lens components OUT, as in my photo at the right, I can capture a sharp image of a distant scene.

 

To be clear, with this lens mounted on my M10, I not only see the sharpest image in LiveView when I have the focus set to 20 feet, but more importantly, I get an equally sharp image when I actually take the photo with 20 feet showing on the distance scale, and the front part of the lens seemingly screwed "out" as much as you see in the photos below, unlike the new lens being sold on eBay.

I will wait until after I talk to Leica, but to me, none of this seems logical.  The eBay lens is set to infinity, and the front part of the lens appears to be fully retracted into the housing.

If I loosen those three tiny set screws, and re-align the focus ring so it says infinity when the lens is extended so I can see my photo (miles away), the lens will need to be extended to capture the photo.  

Does it matter that the lens in the eBay photo says "BUND" at the bottom, while mine does not?  

Did Leica also build these lenses for a different camera, which would explain the focusing difference?

 

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 August 8, 2021 by MikeMyers

[adan]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

The fellow at B&H seemed to be confused about something I considered obvious - he was concerned that I'm taking a 1960's lens and using it on a digital M10.  All my Leica lenses are from the 60's, and they all seem to focus just fine except this one, so I think that's a non-issue.........

Digital is more revealing of some image problems that the grain, thickness and light-diffusion of gelatin film can hide. And also focus problems with longer lenses that have less DoF. Leica itself recommends stopping down several stops using any of their 135s on their digital bodies, simply for more focus leeway - and has greatly tightened the tolerances they now use in manufacturing (new Wetzlar factory) since even the 1990s.

BUT that doesn't explain the gross mis-match of focus ring and focus position with your specific 135mm lens - it is way out of tolerence even by 1960s standards.

Personally, I don't try to service lenses myself, especially with the complex focusing mechanisms of RF lenses. Just too easy to encounter a "Jesus Spring" (you loosen something, it pops off, a tiny spring behind it flies away into a dark corner of the room, and you cry "JESUS!!"

Bottom line - Someone may have caused this problem by attempting a self-repair without adequate understanding of the mechanism. I would think trying to repeat the same thing is only going to make it worse. "If you find yourself in a hole, more digging won't get your out."

Return it to B&H and let them handle a repair (or just give you your money back).

It is their responsiblity - unless of course you've fiddled with it yourself. In which case you've voided their warranty and return policy. Which will leave you stuck with this $650 non-working lens, plus any future repair expenses.

[pedaes]

24 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I will wait until after I talk to Leica

I would guess all they will say is send it in, so if you are going down the 'CLA' route an independent should be your choice.

I agree with jaapv, as from personal experience the focusing mount can unintentionally unscrew when removing the lens head, and it is tricky getting the helicoils correctly aligned. This will be done as part of a CLA.

As a CLA will cost as much as lens, I would send it back.

Edited August 8, 2021 by pedaes

[MikeMyers]

Interesting you said that - over the past few days, I think I remember seeing the helical - maybe I was dreaming - but I think I turned the lens back in.  That might be a reasonable explanation of what is wrong, that someone turned the lens out, but put it back in incorrectly.  It might explain the incorrect focusing distance being shown on the lens, but not why the lens seems to be 1/4" further out than necessary, to take a picture of something miles away from me.

As for me, I have unscrewed the front "lens" part, from the rear "housing" and screwed it back in place several times, but that has nothing to do with the focusing as far as I can tell.

I had a very long phone discussion with B&H just now - they transferred me to a technician who eventually agreed the lens should come back for repair, then transferred me to a fellow in used customer service who just sent me a pre-paid mailing label to return the lens.  They will fix it, and send it back to me.  In the unlikely case it's not fixable, I will get my money back, and either buy another lens from them, or forget the whole idea and work with my (equally old) 90mm Summicron.

I will post one test image in a few minutes - I guess I need to stop down this lens more than expected.

[MikeMyers]

I took a photos a few minutes ago, focusing as best I could with the magnified image in Live View, then edited in PhotoLab4 without changing any of the defaults.  The photo was shot at f/8 which I thought might be reasonable.  PL4 still thought I took it with my 35mm Summilux - I need to create a custom setting for the 135 f/4 TeleElmar I guess.  I braced my camera against a wall, but perhaps I should have used a tripod.  First image - PhotoLab4 thinks I used ISO 200 (correct), f/9.5 (???), and 1/360th (might be what the camera selected, as I had it set to "A").  For the other two, PL4 recognized that they were shot at f/8.

The first images were reduced to only 1,500 pixels wide.  I expected better.  The center of the images is fine, but the edges and corners look rather blurry.  Is this typical of what this lens can do?

I'm wondering if a different lens might be better for me.  

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!

[Printmaker]

Sorry for your troubles. These images do not look right. Yes, I try to shoot my 135 at F 5.6 to make up for any misalignment issues and DOF, but that is not always possible. I would suggest a different copy. If all else fails, there is always the APO Telyt 135. Nice used copies go for about $2,500.

BTW: nothing against B&H - which I use for hard to find items - but I like to support Leica specialty stores whenever possible. I use the Leica Store in San Francisco, Tamarkin, and sometimes the Leica Store in Miami. When I was a college kid way back in 1968-1972, I worked for a Leica specialty store part-time to help pay my tuition. We were required to have as much knowledge about Leica as possible and conduct ourselves in an honest and professional manner while the big stores in NYC only offered the best price. No doubt things have changed in the past half century but old habits die hard. Your repair/replacement experience will tell.

[adan]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

The first images were reduced to only 1,500 pixels wide.  I expected better.  The center of the images is fine, but the edges and corners look rather blurry.  Is this typical of what this lens can do?

I'm wondering if a different lens might be better for me.

Not at all typical behavior - the 135 TE is known for its relative consistent and flat corner-to-corner focus and resolution. Those corners are way out of whack for this lens.

(graphics from Leica M lenses - Their Soul and Secrets, Erwin Puts, 2001 .pdf - lable is a typo - should be Tele-Elmar f/4)

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!

Someone who didn't know what they were doing got in there and futzed around (maybe just trying to remove some internal dust), and my bet would be (s)he put the solo rear element in backwards when putting the lens back together.

Which will foul up both the effective focal length in this telephoto design (thus explaining why it has to be set to 20 feet to focus on long distances), and also completely berk the corner performance in the image. Leica's original optical design has been turned into garbage by someone's fiddling around.

Quick check: if you remove the lens unit like you did for the picture in post #42, the back of the glass should be slightly concave. If it is slightly convex (domed), then it is installed backwards!!

If that is the case, then you might (repeat, might) be able to "repair" it with minimal invasiveness. See if that rear-most black metal band (below the "60 ") can be unscrewed, and the single element of glass there taken out and flipped over so that the concave side is facing out. Then test it again for both focus and corner resolution.

Or - just let B&H straighten it out. Might include your test snaps to aid their service person in diagnosing the problem.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MikeMyers]

Hard to tell, but if I look at a reflection on the back element of the lens, it is similar to a reflection on the front element.  If it was concave, I think the reflection would look very different, and if it was flat, the reflection would obviously be flat.  So I think you likely identified the problem - which may explain the strange scratchings on the lens as well.

I will print out your comments and enclose them with the lens, highlighted, when I return the lens this coming Tuesday.

If B&H can't fix it, I'll get a different lens.  

 

Reminds me of the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover".

[pippy]

As has been said a few times there is something seriously wrong with your lens. These lenses might be an old design but they were designed by none other than Walter Mandler himself and are superb performers.

Send it back. I'm pretty sure it will be fixable - as long as all the elements are present! They are beautifully engineered and, as such, their proper assembly should be well within the capabilities of a skilled repairman.

Philip.

Edited August 8, 2021 by pippy