135 APO Telyt - Usability and Usage Question

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using 135mm lenses on Leica LTM and M cameras since 1974 (I was in my teens back then), and a 135mm on a Leica LTM or M has always been some sort of a specialty lens. It gives you some reach if you need it on a rangefinder camera, but this obviously involves the drawbacks associated with a rangefinder camera at this focal length, namely a relatively "small" frame in the viewfinder to compose your shot and rangefinder accuracy at the limit of the system, at least at or near full aperture. Let's face it, if 135mm is your focal length and you want to do a lot of shots using that focal length, then it was probably never the best idea to use that focal length on a rangefinder camera. Rather, in the old days you would have used an SLR, which also gave you access to even longer focal length lenses, such as 180mm, 200mm or even 300mm. And nowadays one would likely select an EVF camera for the same tasks.

That said, when using a rangefinder camera system, I have always wanted to have access to a 135mm lens, and have taken some great shots with those over the years, even if I have to admit that I have likely taken less than 5% of my shots with a 135mm lens. But if that were different, I would likely not have used a rangefinder camera anyway.

Edited July 7, 2023 by wizard

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

29 minutes ago, pgk said:

having had several 135/4 lenses I would say that all have had focus issues except the E46 version and I remember reading something about the cam being problematic until the E46 version

Not to contradict you but to avoid possible panic attacks among E39 users  my copy from 1971 is free from focus issues

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, lct said:

Not to contradict you but to avoid possible panic attacks among E39 users  my copy from 1971 is free from focus issues

Good, and I'm sure many are, but not the ones which I had (3 or 4, I can't remember). The complete mechanical redesign was obviously carried out for a good reason though. I think that it might have been Malolm Taylor I talked to about this issue. I seem to rememer that the E39 version can apparently be problematic unless they  perfectly set up and the RF roller ramp is within tolerance. If they aren't then when this is combined with the lens being at the limit of the rangefinder's accuracy, they will not focus well.

[lct]

I did not know this but my experience is of little relevance since i got the lens in as new condition last year. I'm not even sure it has been used by previous users. Focusing is smooth though as if the grease had kept its viscosity.

[charlesphoto99]

I had a wonderful late model non-scalloped E39 135mm and it wouldn't focus on my M10. Just wouldn't engage with he rf roller. Dealer demo it did fine, my Monochrome fine, previous M9 fine etc. It was just that much out of tolerance with my particular M10. The 135 APO that replaced it (and I got a fairly good deal on) started to fail on me and focus was way off. Turns out it had been poorly repaired in the past. After DAG fixed it (even having to drill out a wrongly used screw), focus was a revelation. I'd been photographing planes for a series I'm working on, and it was no longer a matter of just 'putting it at infinity' but now actual very fine, small differences in focus at long distance. 

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!

[Gregm61]

Another comment re: DAG, I've noticed for a while my MP240 had a slight back-focus via the rangefinder. On Friday, June 30 I sent the camera off to DAG's shop via UPS. The camera was delivered to DAG on Wednesday, July 5. Friday evening, July 7 I had an email the camera was ready to send back. I sent the payment that evening via PayPal and the camera was back in my hands on Tuesday the 11th, so less than two weeks from the date I shipped it until the camera was back in my hands, and the focus is spot on.

The past couple of days I've been stress-testing it with the 135mm APO. Over the years I've purchased both the 1.25x and 1.4x viewfinder magnifiers. Still trying to find what bag the 1.4x unit is hiding in but found the 1.25x unit so I mounted the lens, magnifier and walked the 105 degree streets of Dallas during my lunch hour the past couple of days looking for subjects of varying distances to try at f3.4 and ISO 200, meaning the shutter speeds were between 1/2000-1/4000, depending on the light.

f4..

By f5.6 or f8, you can do some serious compression of objects and have a nice, deep depth of field.

 

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/7/2023 at 9:20 AM, pgk said:

Good, and I'm sure many are, but not the ones which I had (3 or 4, I can't remember). The complete mechanical redesign was obviously carried out for a good reason though

Correct - the E39 versions of the Tele-Elmar use a flat push-rod to connect the lens's focus cam (3-4mm deep inside the lens) to the camera's RF roller.

When focusing from near to far, the lens cam positively "drives" the push-rod backwards with "irresistible finger force" and holds it tight against the roller to move the roller.

However, when focusing from far to near, the lens cam did not "pull" on the push-rod with force; it simply removes its force on the rod by moving forward, and a return spring in the lens, plus the spring of the camera roller arm, drive the push-rod to "follow" the cam. In theory.

A return-spring weakened by age, or grease clotted by age or lack of use, can overpower the driving spring force in that case, leading to sticking, skipping, or even no push-rod movement at all when focusing from far to near.

And Leica did change exactly that with the E46 version, which has a full-length, single, focus cam cylinder (just like a 50mm, or a 90 v.3.2 or the 90mm Elmarit-M), and no push-rod dependent on springs. The cam is positively driven in both directions (pushed and pulled), by the threads of the focus mechanism. Part of the reason for the extra 50-60g weight of the E46 version.

With the APO-Telyt, Leica came up with yet another design, to remove weight without losing the positive focus drive in both directions. The lens cam no longer turns to move in and out - the entire cam is driven in and out in a straight line by the rotating focus helix/ring around it. But it narrows from a full-length cam cylinder to a "beaver tail" that is the same piece of metal, but only ~1cm in width for most of its length. In effect, a push-and-pull rod.

   <  >
^^^^^^
             ———————
             ___________|      .....all one piece of metal.
vvvvvvv
   <  >

Edited July 15, 2023 by adan

[adan]

On 7/3/2023 at 10:39 AM, lldd said:

I have an M10-R and 50 Summilux as my only camera/lens.  Looking to add a 135mm lens.  I love the idea of using the Leica 135 on my M, but am concerned about focusing, size vs. M (balance and hand feel), etc.  At current prices, for a few more hundred $, I can buy a Canon R5 with their amazing 135 and focus capability.  Not sure which direction to go.  For those who have Leica 135, how much do you use it, how is it for accurate focusing?  I really don't want to buy it and end up not using it.  But if it's pretty straightforward, then perhaps it's the best option.  In addition, adding an SL3 for the M135 might be an option down the road as well.  I appreciate any insights/experience any of you might have.

As to the original question (and some responses):

1) I use a 135 a lot. Sometimes It is the ONLY long M lens I carry (combined with a 21, 35/28 and 50). Adobe Bridge tells me that on my most recent travel shoot, the 135 accounted for fully half my pictures.

A decade ago, when I took both a 90 and a 135 to Europe, I discovered when I got back that I was cropping most of my 90mm shots to 105-135 framing. (And the 135 shots were still usually better-considered and effective.)

Lesson (re)learned.

I upgraded to the M10 originally almost entirely for its 135-friendly aspects - higher viewfinder magnification and tighter tolerances, and higher ISOs (for using f/4-ish in dark places).

It is the sole focal length in which I have two lenses (APO-Telyt and Tele-Elmar), just for back-up if one needs service. I do not ever want to be without one.

2) The idea that an RF-focused 135 requires some different camera (or viewfinder) is nonsense. What it requires is what any high-end productive tool requires - PRACTICE - PRACTICE -PRACTICE. Until you know that tool better than you know the lines of your hand.

What is suffient practice? Well, a pro golfer may practice 4-6 hours per day with her various clubs. Which leads to the famous Arnold Palmer quote: "It's a funny thing, but the more I practice, the luckier I get!"

Or the old joke:

Tourist in New York to street musician: "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"
Street musician: "Practice! Practice! Practice!"

But that's not specific to the 135 - no lens (Leica or otherwise) will produce worthwhile results without constant practice. "Occasional" users take heed.

3) Subsequent to 2), I do practice all the time, which is how I know my 135s better than the palm of my hand.

But I have also learned (amazing thing, learning) "tricks of the trade" for my 135s at wide apertures. In this digital era, I always bang off a focus test as soon as I mount a 135 for the first time each day, just to find out "What's it doing today!?" Shoot any flat surface (wall or picture on a wall, e.g.) at a slant angle ( —\ ) and focus on a specific spot, and see if the lens (or I) are back-or-front focusing in that plane at that moment (I am the most usual suspect, once I retest and watch the RF more carefully).

With the older TE, after I mount it, I rack the focus back and forth a couple of times, from close-focus to infinity and back, just to make sure the grease is evenly distributed: no sticky spots, and that the cam helix is well-centered in the grease between the threads of the focus ring.

I am more - thoughtful - about focusing. Focusing on a performer's shirt button or guitar strings, just because they are easier to see, and "about" where their face is, won't work to get the eyes in focus with a 135 - even though it MAY work with a 35mm.

Sometimes I use "focus averaging". If I can't see someone's eyes clearly, but can see crisp edges on their ears and nose, I just focus for the point where the RF split-image of the glasses shows back-focus, and the ears show front-focus, and then the eyes come out sharp. Similar for other "stacked" subject matter. Sometimes I will focus on the performer's easy-to-see microphone, and then add a breath of back focus to nail the eyes.

Speaking of eyes, mine are not great, My shooting eye has both a cataract, and incipient macular degeneration - a faint "pebbled-glass" pattern overlaying anything I look at centrally).

https://www.vandykes.com/restorers-pebble-custom-decorative-architectural-glass/p/234634/

Nevertheless I nail focus with the 135mm f/3.4 over 95% of the time. All the result of constant practice and "knowing the instrument."

4) My primary 135 is the APO-Telyt, for four reasons:

a ) It is the lightest 135mm Leitz/Leica have made (455g) since the Elmar f/4.0 of 1960-65 (440g)

b ) It is or can be 6-bit coded, so that I don't have to ditz around in the camera menus (my menus stay permanently set for my uncodable Leitz 50mm Summicron v.3).

c ) Despite its nominal f/3.4 aperture, it has a T-stop (actual light transmitted) closer to the 135 Elmarit's f/2.8. Due to more modern coatings and thinner glass elements. It fairly regularly produces exposures (auto-selected ISO and shutter speed) identical to my 90mm Elmarit-M, under identical lighting. And virtually a full stop better than the TE.

d ) It is visibly crisper and cleaner at f/3.4-4.8 than the Tele-Elmar. Admittedly, it is the difference between very, very good, and exceptionally good.   a, b, and c, are the important points.

Edited July 15, 2023 by adan

[RexGig0]

I am thankful for the valuable advice, and the sample images, that I have seen, in this discussion. I have really liked the 135mm focal length, when using DSLRs, to the extent that I can use a 135mm lens as an only lens, all day, for a walk-about, if mostly outdoors, without feeling too constrained. A 135mm teamed with a 35mm or 50mm can be a truly wonderful combination. My longest M-mount focal length, thus far, is 90mm, and with plenty of M-mount lenses in the 18mm to 90mm focal lengths, it is time to contemplate adding a 135mm M lens, to reduce the perceived “need” to bring a DSLR camera, along with my M kit.

Edited July 16, 2023 by RexGig0

[Guest]

On 7/3/2023 at 3:35 PM, lct said:

It is not, or not only, a matter of calibration. On M cameras like M10 or M11, the effective base length (EBL) of the rangefinder is 50.60mm. This is not too much of a problem at f/4 for 135mm lenses since the critical base length of the RF is inferior at that aperture (45.56mm). But at f/3.4, the critical base length is superior (53.60mm). Better use an EVF then or an optical magnifier that will enhance the EBL value. On M10 and M11 cameras, Leica recommends stopping down "by at least 2 stops" as a precaution. Excerpt of the M11 manual below.

 

Subjectively, focusing the Apo Telyt at f/3.4 is not harder than with the Noctilux 0.95 🙂

[Guest]

1/ For inspiration how to use the 135mm Apo Telyt, I would recommend to check out Ralph Gibson's work (books, YouTube, ralphgibson.com)

2/ Thanks to this thread, I went into my back yard this evening and took 7 sample images with the 135 and my M10M. No visual aids, pure range finder. 7/7 were OK, not all 'critical' sharpness but nothing 'critical un-sharp'. Here is a typical example to illustrate, focus on the eye not 100% perfect, but not sure if the EVF or SL2 would have done better?

My biggest 'enemy' to achieve sharpness with the 135mm has historically (before I learned to avoid it) slow shutter speed (without IBIS). Even this one is borderline slow at 1/250 ... Would have preferred faster (but some of the images of the series hitting 25k ISO ...)

1:1 resolution crop (metadata says f/4, but actually shot at f/3.4 ...)

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!

Full image (for context)

Edited July 18, 2023 by mzbe

[lct]

3 hours ago, mzbe said:

Subjectively, focusing the Apo Telyt at f/3.4 is not harder than with the Noctilux 0.95 🙂

Objectively it is but subjectively, it depends on the subject . For photogs like our colleague Andy Piper it looks easily doable, even with a debut of cataract if i understand well. For me, with a debut of cataract too, it is perfectly easy... with the EVF .

[IkarusJohn]

I have mixed emotions about 135 mm on an M camera.

On the positive, as you can see around the framelines, the hit rate getting the image composed is easier than with TTL framing, and when you nail the focus it is a useful focal length.  The traditional combination of lenses back in the day was 28-50-135 (or variations on that theme).

For myself, my 135/4 Elmar, dating back to 1960, has focusing issues.  Leica refused to service it, saying it was too old (strange how you get varying responses from Customer Service).  With a shallow depth of field and a focus patch taking up a significant proportion of the image field, focusing can be challenging even with a magnifier screwed into the eyepiece (doesn't fit the M10 and later M cameras).

For myself, 75mm is my limit with an M camera.  For longer telephotos, I use my SL, with a 180/2.8 APO Elmarit-R and a converter, giving me options of 180mm and 360mm.  This is a far more useful than 135 and the SL is, frankly, better for longer lenses.