Jump to content

Using Elmarit M 135mm f/2.8 without goggles


Sandy Wijaya

Recommended Posts

Of course they can be removed but the focusing through the rangefinder will be unusable. Better to buy the cheaper R version and use it on a simple adapter.  You save the hassle and won’t have an amputated lend. The optics of M and R are identical. Version 2 is better than version 1 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Of course they can be removed but the focusing through the rangefinder will be unusable. Better to buy the cheaper identical R version and use it on a simple adapter.  

Hi jaapv, 

Thank you for the response...
I have tried Elmarit R 135mm before... satisfied enough with the results.
I'm really curious and wanted to try Elmarit 135 M :) 

Cheers!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sandy Wijaya said:

Hi jaapv, 

Thank you for the response...
I have tried Elmarit R 135mm before... satisfied enough with the results.
I'm really curious and wanted to try Elmarit 135 M :) 

Cheers!!

 

You won’t see a difference. It is the same lens. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thury said:

I too should be interested in removing those goggles. How does one proceed ?

I do not have mine at hand now but I cannot remember any screws or other obvious way to remove them.

I have not either but as I recall it involves some dismantling of the mount   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Thury said:

I too should be interested in removing those goggles. How does one proceed ?

I do not have mine at hand now but I cannot remember any screws or other obvious way to remove them.

From what I have seen, there are some screws that can be dismantled.. :) Not sure yet, how is it working...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Mine has the goggles attached to the M mount, no screws.

Not separable from the mount, so needing replacing the mount.

Doable if another M mount is available and no need to RF focussing.

It will be the same for all versions? It will be a hassle then to replace the mounting... :( Thank you for the response...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As decades old user of Tele-Elmar 135mm, I tend to agree.

I was shy of Elmarit for many years but using it a bit, at f/2.8 which Tele-Elmar doesn't have gives me more

dof control and at close down, the net results are fine for me.

 

We are weird, as I don't know why when I need 135mm, I grab one of my multiple ( having three from different periods) Tele-Elmar 135.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, a.noctilux said:

As decades old user of Tele-Elmar 135mm, I tend to agree.

I was shy of Elmarit for many years but using it a bit, at f/2.8 which Tele-Elmar doesn't have gives me more

dof control and at close down, the net results are fine for me.

 

We are weird, as I don't know why when I need 135mm, I grab one of my multiple ( having three from different periods) Tele-Elmar 135.

 

Great point... 😀😀

For myself it is quite often to pick 135mm in the field, as I'm dealing with cultural activities that we need to keep some distance. 

f/2.8 is a "bonus" of course... Sometimes you might need it but not as a priority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR I've never actually shot with the 135 2.8 - always been curious though, being the most weight for dollar in the M lineup, lol. I currently use a 135 APO (out for repair at DAG at the moment) but had Tele-Elmar's in the past,of varying ages (scalloped, non-scalloped, and current body design) which were all fantastic. Unfortunately the last one I had wouldn't focus the rf on my M10 (just mine for some reason) so instead of getting it fixed I found a good deal on the APO. Using mine primarily for 'landscapes' but works well with people, esp if at a slower pace or more stationary. 

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!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

FTR I've never actually shot with the 135 2.8 - always been curious though, being the most weight for dollar in the M lineup, lol. I currently use a 135 APO (out for repair at DAG at the moment) but had Tele-Elmar's in the past,of varying ages (scalloped, non-scalloped, and current body design) which were all fantastic. Unfortunately the last one I had wouldn't focus the rf on my M10 (just mine for some reason) so instead of getting it fixed I found a good deal on the APO. Using mine primarily for 'landscapes' but works well with people, esp if at a slower pace or more stationary. 

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!

Great one Charles… 

My experience for these 10 years, primarily using Elmarit R 135mm.. love the tones and organic sharpness of the optics. 

Cheers! 🍻

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years I owned the 135/2.8, the 135/4 Tele-Elmar (early, late  and current versions), and presently own the OLD 135/4 Elmar, which is my go-to 135, because I can use it on both my M body and Barnack bodies, as well as with a Visoflex and on the bellows, and it is nearly as sharp as the others wide open. The 2.8 was too heavy and bulky for a 135 on a Leica body as far as I was concerned. I think that is one reason the price is often fairly low for a Leica lens. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

Over the years I owned the 135/2.8, the 135/4 Tele-Elmar (early, late  and current versions), and presently own the OLD 135/4 Elmar, which is my go-to 135, because I can use it on both my M body and Barnack bodies, as well as with a Visoflex and on the bellows, and it is nearly as sharp as the others wide open. The 2.8 was too heavy and bulky for a 135 on a Leica body as far as I was concerned. I think that is one reason the price is often fairly low for a Leica lens. 

Thanks for sharing your experiences... indeed 2.8 = bulky and quite a cheap price. Depends on the need though, I have browsed the Elmar M 135mm, nice lens... but then again my need will be on for f/2.8 :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...