135 Tele-Elmar vs APO

[Franka373]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a chance to pick up a pretty good copy of the tele elmar though my eye has been on the APO.  I have a mandler lens in the 90 elmarit so I not sure I need another one.  It will be used on an M11.  Does anyone have a view one way or the other?   Thanks for your help.  

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

I faced the same dilemma, but decided on the Tele-Elmar, based on projected usage. I use it seldom and do not regret my choice. Optically, there is very little difference. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by wda

[didier]

5 hours ago, wda said:

I faced the same dilemma, but decided on the Tele-Elmar, based on projected usage. I use it seldom and do not regret my choice. Optically, there is very little difference. 

+1

I went the same route with a mint Tele-Elmar. I am very happy with it.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I considered the Apo, but found a Tele-Elmar with a $100 winning bid, had it CLAd for another $100 and haven't looked back. The lens got me using 135 again. 

[105012]

The Tele-Elmar can be great value for money, on the other hand the APO offers better image quality at wide apertures, lighter weight and a bit more compact form. It is easy to get exact focus with the APO at f3.4 on an M3, but that is the king of rangefinders so may not apply if you have a lesser rangefinder 😀

Edited March 13, 2022 by 105012

[adan]

I keep trying the APO-Telyt - I like its 454g weight - I keep coming back to the Tele-Elmar in one version or another.

I will confess the up-to-10X difference in cost is one factor - but not the only one. I could afford a 135 APO if I wanted, since 135 is one of my most-preferred M focal lengths. I'm willing to put my money where it will get the most use.

For me, the biggest problem with the APO-Telyt is a strong tendency to veiling flare from reflections inside the barrel behind the glass. From bright lights or sun in the scene just outside the image area. In that regard it is at times almost as bad as the 90mm Tele-Elmarit-M (thin) design. The much-better glass coatings of the APO do nothing to cure reflections off internal metal.

Possibly not a problem encountered by everyone - but since one of my primary uses for a 135 is inside a gallery/band venue with lots of spotlights dotted around, the likelihood of a bright spotlight (or even just a brightly-lit white wall) in "just the wrong place" is pretty high.

Biggest problem with the Tele-Elmars is that they are simply getting older and creakier (the earliest date to 1964) - slight play in the focus ring, hazing of the glass, and so on. The relatively-rare last version (1992-98 - on the right in the image below), with modern Solms construction, E46 filter size and built-in lens hood, is less prone to those problems, as well as internal flare. But the heaviest of the lot (at 550 grams).

And a CLA is likely to prove technically "not-economical" - more expensive than the value of some 135 TEs. Although $800 for a 135 TE and a CLA is still a pretty good deal in absolute terms.

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!

Other than those comments, 105012's analysis of the imaging is pretty accurate. Although I would question whether a lens requiring 49mm filters is really "more compact" than lenses using 39mm or 46mm filters (the Tele-Elmars).

The TE is very very good - Leica's "best" 135 up until the APO arrived. It just barely misses apochromatic performance, with occasional small red fringes around high-contrast edges or points at f/4 - usually reduced to below visibility by f/5.6. Its resolution is maybe 5% below the APO, altough the APO reproduces the same fine details with somewhat more contrast.

I like the TE's tonality and rich "Mandler" greens

But ask me again next week, and I may be chasing another APO-Telyt.

135 TE (E39 version from 1988) at f/4.0, Leica M10. 100% crop, and full picture.

Edited March 14, 2022 by adan

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beware that at full aperture,  the 135/3.4 exceeds the accuracy limits of all Leica rangefinders but the M3 or the 0.85x M6 (or M6J), in theory at least. Reason why Leica recommends to stop down by "at least 2 stops" in RF mode since the M9 if memory serves. In practice i find f/4 as accurate as 90mm lenses at f/2 more or less but it's just a feeling. Of course focusing is not a problem with an EVF.

[a.noctilux]

x1.4 or x1.25 magnifier can be (or not depending on many things) a good companion of 3.4/4/135mm VF use.

I choose for some years now the heavier Elmarit 2.8/135 very handy with it's attached loupe...

 

As side note, when I use Tele-Elmar 135mm at far distance, the focus accuracy is enough wide open, but at 3m or less for "not to be surprised results",

I must close the lens to say f/5.6/8.

 

Same questions/answers ?

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by a.noctilux

[105012]

8 hours ago, adan said:

Other than those comments, 105012's analysis of the imaging is pretty accurate. Although I would question whether a lens requiring 49mm filters is really "more compact" than lenses using 39mm or 46mm filters (the Tele-Elmars).

Just a note from the Leica Wiki: TE4 has dimensions 112 x 59 mm and 550g; AT3.4 has dimensions 104.5 x 58.5mm and 450g. I agree, the phrase ‘more compact’ could be considered generous, but nevertheless true.

[Gregm61]

The week I took delivery of my 135 APO Telyt I sent the lens and my M262 to DAG and he adjusted the focus of the lens to match the camera. I called him before sending and had the set back less than two weeks after sending it off.

I didn’t want the camera’s rangefinder adjusted as it already worked well with other lenses, like the 75mm f2 APO.

I’ve had very good results with focus accuracy with the 135 APO since getting the set back.

[UliWer]

On 3/13/2022 at 11:02 PM, 105012 said:

It is easy to get exact focus with the APO at f3.4 on an M3, but that is the king of rangefinders so may not apply if you have a lesser rangefinder 😀

Yes, and certainly the normal 0.73-viewfinder magnification is not sufficient for using the Apo-Telyt fully opened. Even Leica says so all their instructions for digital M cameras and recommends to use 135mm only at f/5.6 or smaller with the rangefinder. Closed down the differences between the Apo-Telyt and the Tele-Elmar become smaller. So to make full use of the Apo-Telyt (and even the Tele-Elmar) the EVF is obligatory.  

20 hours ago, adan said:

For me, the biggest problem with the APO-Telyt is a strong tendency to veiling flare from reflections inside the barrel behind the glass. From bright lights or sun in the scene just outside the image area.

I should not call it a strong tendency to veiling flare from what I know, but the problem exists; it is reported more often with the 75mm Summicron but I have seen similar effects with the Apo-Telyt on rare occasions.  

Though the OP says he wants to use the lens with the M11. I may be wrong, but I think to remember that adan mentioned a possible culprit for this problem: the small lens in the camera's mouth which is used for light metering in M-bodies since the M6 up to the M10. There is good reason to assume that reflections from this lens may cause the veiling effect in some situations. So it would be very interesting to learn whether the M11 - which hasn't got this small lens any more - still shows the same effects (which would exonerate the small lens) or whether the problem miraculously disappeared (which would give a new explanation why Leica ditched the traditional method of light metering for the M11). 

[adan]

59 minutes ago, UliWer said:

t think to remember that adan mentioned a possible culprit for this problem: the small lens in the camera's mouth which is used for light metering in M-bodies since the M6 up to the M10.

I have looked through the back of an unmounted 135 AT and seen the reflections (of lights just outside the frame) within the lens barrel as well. Even took a picture of them, although I can't find it on my "current" hard drive - may be on my backups (which I am about to migrate to 8 TB drives).

But indeed the "cramped" space within the M10 may make it worse, and the M11 (per Leica) addresses that in part by removing the whole meter unit, and thus lowering the entire "floor" of the shutter chamber.

Personally I have not had a lot of trouble focusing either 135 wide-open, especially with the redesigned RF in the M10 (reason #1 I moved up from the M9). I actually find 135s in general to be easier to focus than 90s, perhaps due to the longer subject distances and smaller apertures (< 2.8). Noses, glasses and eyes all tend to fall within the same DoF more easily.

Picture from last week with the Tele-Elmar at f/4.0 - in dim light (ISO 10000 at 1/90th,  f/4.0, M10)

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!

 

[105012]

2 hours ago, UliWer said:

... So to make full use of the Apo-Telyt (and even the Tele-Elmar) the EVF is obligatory.  

...or use an M3.