Shooting with 135mm Elmarit

[George Stoichev]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I’m looking to buy 135mm lens for my Leica m6.

I’m wandering can you share some experience with this or similar 135mm lens on Leica M film camera.

I see that the lens come with googles, do I need them?Do I need a special viewfinder in order to focus with this lens?

[jankap]

Leica Wiki is your friend, the link is in the top of this window.

See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/3/3a/Puts-2002-M-lenses.pdf

Edited December 27, 2021 by jankap

[Advertisement]

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

[RayD28]

I'm also considering a 135.  I'm mainly interested in ergonomics and real-life usage.  

[wda]

I found the 135 mm Elmarit excellent on my M3, but it was bulky and heavy. I could not see myself touring with it. Much later I found the 135 mm Elmar much more suitable and wrote about it here https://www.davidaskham.com/a-gem-from-the-past I still use it on my MP240 and, adapted, on my Leica CL. I can strongly recommend it. Only if you find yourself using that focal length regularly, should you consider the latest lens offered by Leica for the M range.

[algrove]

The 135  Hector is inexpensive and made for film M's. Worth a look.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have a 135 Tele Elmar, 1966 vintage. I had it cleaned upand it is the best 135 I have used. I use it on an M3, M8 and a CL. The Elmarit also has a good reputation, I would buy the one you can get the best price on. The Tele-Elmar is a Sonnar design. With the CL

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]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For M6, I used Tele-Elmar 4/135, not easy lens to use but far more easy holding than the Elmarit 2.8/135 that I use when I can.

With Elmarit 2.8/135, we need of course the attached goggles (not removable on my Elmarit 135).

These added glasses are magnifier x1.5 and use the 90mm frame lines to more precise framing than 135.

[rcusick]

Get the Elmar... Any version is fantastic. 

[stray cat]

Hi George, I have both the Elmar f4 from 1962 and the Elmarit f2.8 with goggles. Both are superb lenses which I use with my M6TTL film Leicas. There is something about the color fidelity of the Elmarit which I find quite unique and very beautiful. It is a larger, bulkier and heavier lens than the Elmar, there's no denying that, but I'm glad I have both - one (Elmar) primarily for black and white, and the other for colour. AFAIK you do need the goggles with the Elmarit (they bring up larger framelines so they are actually a good thing) and you do not need an accessory viewfinder.

[Danner]

My answer to the 135 questions was a Tele-Elmar (f/4.0) in M mount.  Very happy with the decisions.  Sharp, light, quality, inexpensive.  Rangefinder focusing steered my away from the f/2.8 models.

[lct]

Goggles are needed to focus accurately at f/2.8. If f/4 is fast enough for you the Elmar 135/4 is very good and inexpensive but the 135mm frame looks tiny in 0.72x VFs. Same for the Tele-Elmar 135/4 v1 or v2 which are probably the better compromise. Same also for the Apo-Telyt 135/3.4 which is superb otherwise but is more expensive and needs a magnifier to get good hit rates at f/3.4. 

[spydrxx]

I've owned the Elmarit, Tele-Elmar (two versions), and Elmar. IMHO the Elmarit is too heavy and bulky. The Tele-Elmar (the most common version with a removable lens which can be used with the Visoflex alone or also bellows) IMHO is the sharpest with best contrast. Having said that I picked up a screwmount Elmar and have stuck with it for several years now...very good wide open, and like the Tele-Elmar, the head unscrews for use with the Visoflex and bellows. An M adapter lets me use it on both my screwmount bodies and M bodies. Its other redeeming grace is that they are inexpensive and although old, quite plentiful in good condition.

[RayD28]

13 hours ago, wda said:

I found the 135 mm Elmarit excellent on my M3, but it was bulky and heavy. I could not see myself touring with it. Much later I found the 135 mm Elmar much more suitable and wrote about it here https://www.davidaskham.com/a-gem-from-the-past I still use it on my MP240 and, adapted, on my Leica CL. I can strongly recommend it. Only if you find yourself using that focal length regularly, should you consider the latest lens offered by Leica for the M range.

Thanks, David.  Very concise and helpful article.  

[Jean-Michel]

Hi George. I have the 135 Elmarit. It is an ok lens, but nothing special about it, it is heavy and a bit awkward to use. The goggles are an integral part of the lens. Mounting the lens brings up the 90 mm frame, correctly adjusted to show the 135 field. The rangefinder patch is more or less the same as the ‘naked’ viewfinder but takes a larger share of the enlarged 135 field, making for a somewhat easier focusing. You get to see a little bit of view outside the frameline but not much. The focus throw is quite long, so you really need to have the lens pre-focused to somewhere near your shooting distance in order to make the actual focusing not frustrating. I bought mine years ago for too much money as I needed a 135 for a project, and no longer had  Tele-Elmar, sling that small lens had been a mistake! Today, the Elmarit sits mostly unused; my ‘tele’ lens is a 90 Macro-Elmar. I don’t normally recommend or not recommend any lens, but in this case, I don’t think that it will suit your type of photography.

[farnz]

George,

The 135/2.8 Elmarit (with the goggles) has a tendency to get hazy over time or exhibit lens separation owing to the Canada Balsam adhesive that was used to stick the element groups together.  Canada Balsam is a naturally occurring resin harvested from the Balsam tree and 'wears out' in the same way that rubber perishes over time.   Modern (synthetic) adhesives don't have this problem,

If you decide to go for the Elmarit I recommend thoroughly checking for haze and/or separation and if buying online making sure the vendor offers returns.

Pete.

[Dave Murray]

Having bought the 135mm f2.8 Elmarit M “goggles” lens last year, after fancying one for a long time, I found the following useful: 

Built in collapsing lens hood.

Tripod mount the same as my 135mm f4.5 Hektor.

55mm filter threads as used on my R lenses 35/50/100/135/180 so I didn’t have to purchase more filters. 
 

I agree with previous reviewers that the viewfinder frame is easy to see compared with the frame seen in my M3 for 135 when using Hektor.

Weight: well yes, it’s heavy and when carrying two M bodies and the 21mm f3.4 plus  a meter the bag is heavy. However, if one has a camera around the neck, that’s a bit off the old shoulders.