135mm F3.4 Telyt-M APO vs F4 Telyt-Elmar

[Shu_downunder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone have experience with these two lenses with M246 please?

Is AU$3000 worth the APO and 20% less weight? Iwill ignore the 1/2 faster stip. 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Hello Shu,

I think that you mean Tele-Elmar-M 4/135mm.

If it's the case, I'm happy with this 135mm for decades, why I don't need the newer Apo F/3.4.

However I also use the very heavy Elmarit-M 2.8/135 with goggles showing 90mm framelines, easier to frame and focus.

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!

from https://wi

 

 

I use many units of the middle type and some claim it's already "Apo" without marking as such.

 

 

and many more threads, just do a search.

[UliWer]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Shu_downunder:

Is AU$3000 worth the APO and 20% less weight? Iwill ignore the 1/2 faster stip. 

If you don't use Live View with these lenses you'll get more or less precise results only with f/5.6 or smaller (I know that some eagle eyed people will tell you that it is no problem to focus an Apo-Telyt fully opened though I think I am only addressing mortal beings here...).

The second issue is camera shaking. Both belong to the group of lenses about which Mr. Karbe once said that they will only show what they can if you fix them in concrete.

If you happen to focus it correctly and if you succeed to avoid camera shake the practical difference between both lenses come down to aberrations which are better controlled by the Apo-Telyt and on a very happy day you might get results from the Apo-Telyt which no other lens (I know) will be able to give. 

[Shu_downunder]

 

 

Thanks @a.noctilux and @UliWer

Weight

I intend to use this lens with my 24 Elmar for B&W architectural photos. And I'd like to take it daily basis with me in my car. So weight is a top consideration in my case.

Performance

9 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

If it's the case, I'm happy with this 135mm for decades, why I don't need the newer Apo F/3.4.

Does that mean they have only marginal performance differences?

Focusing

I am badly short-sighted in my right eye so don't mind using EVF or live view. Saying that I prefer using OVF which makes me confident in focusing whenever I can see clearly. But that is only for lenses wider than 50, in my case. So yes I'm prepared to use EVF.

Shaking

3 hours ago, UliWer said:

The second issue is camera shaking. Both belong to the group of lenses about which Mr. Karbe once said that they will only show what they can if you fix them in concrete.

Not sure if a high shutter speed helps. I quite often shoot in high ISO to get 2000 + speed as I don't use a tripod... The M246 provides realy usable images below ISO6400.

[rcusick]

The tele elmar is great.  I don’t see why you need an apo - especially for a focal length that is specialized. 
 

Elmar…

 

 

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 February 6, 2024 by rcusick

[jaapv]

The APO Telyt will beat the Tele-Elmar - but only wide open.

[John Black]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Tele-Elmar has alot of CA in its bokeh.  The Tele-Elmar is very sharp, no doubt that, but the CA really bugged me.  The 135 APO does much better in that regard.  And the weight difference quite noticeable if shooting handheld.  The Tele-Elmar (the E46 version) is quite dense.  

[adan]

Short version - Optically speaking (by a tiny amount), the Tele-Elmar is probably the 3rd-best 135 I have ever used, from any consumer brand, with an aperture less than f/2.0.

The APO-Telyt-M f/3.4 is tied for first/second place with the Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 MM/AE (for Contax/Yashica mount, RIP).

You can't go wrong with either. Only perhaps "slightly less right." 😁

Longer version: I used the TE exclusively 2003-2022 (all cosmetic versions). 135mm is my most-used focal length after my 21mm Elmarit.

But I now use the APO-Telyt-M, for three reasons:

1) - it is available 6-bit coded, and I need to know which lens* was used, in the EXIF. And also now need the "freebie uncoded slot**" in the lens menu for a different lens.
2) - it is the lightest 135mm M lens since the Elmar (not Tele-) of the 1960s, at 454g. The TE is 500g (E39 version) to 550g (revised E46 1990s model with built-in hood).
3) - the half-stop speed increase f/4 > f/3.4 is actually a bit more than the raw numbers suggest. It "shoots" more like an f/3.0 in low light. Likely the more modern coatings.

Optically the difference in resolution is razor-thin, especially stopped down to f/5.6 (as noted by others).

The APO has a bit more clarity and micro-contrast at all apertures. The Tele-Elmar is slightly "muddier" on gray days or in shade, but great in sunshine.

The APO does live up to its label - virtually no color fringing/CA at any aperture. The Tele-Elmar will show some faint (1-pixel on M10) red fringes at f/4.0.

Flaws in the APO design: prone to significant internal-reflection flare with bright lights just outside the image area, even with the hood extended. All versions of the TE do better. The short focus throw makes for a bit trickier "finger-tip vernier control" of focusing. I have learned how to account for those, with instant digital feedback being a great teacher. And use the optical RF all the time.

I actual find 135s with their smaller aperture to be easier to focus than a 90mm f/2.0 or 75 f/1.4, mostly due to the differences in shooting distance for the same magnification. With a 135mm at 3m, the distance differential between, say, the tip of the nose and the eyes, is relatively less significant than with a 90 at 2m.

Flaws of the TE: mostly that the older tapered design is often somewhat prone to "looseness" and "slack" in the focus ring, or overall barrel structure - simply due to being 30-55 years old now (and a CLA will add to the cost). Should be less of a problem with the newer (but heavier) 1990s E46 mount with built-in hood.
________
* in case of lens malfunction/misfocusing, I need to know if it was my 90 or 135. Which can be hard to distinguish just from the images.

** my "uncodable" 1971 50mm Summicron v.3 11817 needs to be the "default-selected-in-menu-lens" now. Further explanation available on request.

[Shu_downunder]

21 hours ago, adan said:

Short version - Optically speaking (by a tiny amount), the Tele-Elmar is probably the 3rd-best 135 I have ever used, from any consumer brand, with an aperture less than f/2.0.

The APO-Telyt-M f/3.4 is tied for first/second place with the Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 MM/AE (for Contax/Yashica mount, RIP).

You can't go wrong with either. Only perhaps "slightly less right." 😁

Longer version: I used the TE exclusively 2003-2022 (all cosmetic versions). 135mm is my most-used focal length after my 21mm Elmarit.

But I now use the APO-Telyt-M, for three reasons:

1) - it is available 6-bit coded, and I need to know which lens* was used, in the EXIF. And also now need the "freebie uncoded slot**" in the lens menu for a different lens.
2) - it is the lightest 135mm M lens since the Elmar (not Tele-) of the 1960s, at 454g. The TE is 500g (E39 version) to 550g (revised E46 1990s model with built-in hood).
3) - the half-stop speed increase f/4 > f/3.4 is actually a bit more than the raw numbers suggest. It "shoots" more like an f/3.0 in low light. Likely the more modern coatings.

Optically the difference in resolution is razor-thin, especially stopped down to f/5.6 (as noted by others).

The APO has a bit more clarity and micro-contrast at all apertures. The Tele-Elmar is slightly "muddier" on gray days or in shade, but great in sunshine.

The APO does live up to its label - virtually no color fringing/CA at any aperture. The Tele-Elmar will show some faint (1-pixel on M10) red fringes at f/4.0.

Flaws in the APO design: prone to significant internal-reflection flare with bright lights just outside the image area, even with the hood extended. All versions of the TE do better. The short focus throw makes for a bit trickier "finger-tip vernier control" of focusing. I have learned how to account for those, with instant digital feedback being a great teacher. And use the optical RF all the time.

I actual find 135s with their smaller aperture to be easier to focus than a 90mm f/2.0 or 75 f/1.4, mostly due to the differences in shooting distance for the same magnification. With a 135mm at 3m, the distance differential between, say, the tip of the nose and the eyes, is relatively less significant than with a 90 at 2m.

Flaws of the TE: mostly that the older tapered design is often somewhat prone to "looseness" and "slack" in the focus ring, or overall barrel structure - simply due to being 30-55 years old now (and a CLA will add to the cost). Should be less of a problem with the newer (but heavier) 1990s E46 mount with built-in hood.
________
* in case of lens malfunction/misfocusing, I need to know if it was my 90 or 135. Which can be hard to distinguish just from the images.

** my "uncodable" 1971 50mm Summicron v.3 11817 needs to be the "default-selected-in-menu-lens" now. Further explanation available on request.

Woh, this is a very informative review! Exactly what I need. Thank you.

Although I need to step down in many cases for architectural photos, who knows I won't use it for some portraits, or anything that needs some separation at w/o.
96g of weight saving is a huge thing to me. The only reason I left my 700g 80mm-R lux at home is its weight.

This is my plan, I might get an E46 which is available at my local dealer, just to make sure I do need 135mm. If yes then try to find a good copy of the APO.

 

[charlesphoto99]

I've owned and shot all four versions of this lens. The optical quality of the earlier ones is very good, thought he handling of the APO (and the 46mm version) are much better. Even better is if you have the lens calibrated and adjusted by the likes of DAG. I currently use an APO, which I got for an inexpensive price (and there was reason for that I discovered after a $400 repair job at DAG - somebody had previously botched a repair job using wrong screws etc). I was perfectly fine with the late vintage tele-elmar (39) that I had, but for some reason it would not work on my M10 - the dealers and my Monochrome just fine. Must have been off like a 1/64th from the rollers so they wouldn't engage. I therefor found the deal on the APO - and fell in love with it. 

I would say if you're going to be doing any focus tracking, and/or very large prints, then the APO is the best bet. It's been my walk around lens the last two or three years as I work on a skyscape/landscape project. But it's a good call to start with the 46 model and see if it's something you actually use. I didn't much until recently, consequently why I bought and sold so many. 

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!

[charlesphoto99]

Also, the weight difference between the lenses is negligible - you will not notice it, as they are all about the same size/length and that I find factors in more whether I'm putting it in the bag with me than weight would ever be. 

[pgk]

12 hours ago, Shu_downunder said:

This is my plan, I might get an E46 which is available at my local dealer, just to make sure I do need 135mm. If yes then try to find a good copy of the APO.

I have this version having owned several copies of the earlier E39 versions. The earlier versions did not have accurate focus and adjusting this can apparently be difficult and sometimes impossible due to the design and construction I believe from various things that I have read. My E46 version is as accurate as I could want and I have used it for near 20" x 30" prints without problem, In my opinion it is the TE to go for and I wouldn't bother changing mine for the apo myself.

[charlesphoto99]

19 hours ago, pgk said:

I have this version having owned several copies of the earlier E39 versions. The earlier versions did not have accurate focus and adjusting this can apparently be difficult and sometimes impossible due to the design and construction I believe from various things that I have read. My E46 version is as accurate as I could want and I have used it for near 20" x 30" prints without problem, In my opinion it is the TE to go for and I wouldn't bother changing mine for the apo myself.

I would do the same as long as the 46 T-E is a good price. I paid $1900 for my APO but had to do an almost $400 rebuild by DAG after a couple of years worth of use. I would say though, if you want the most accurate, quickest and smoothest focusing 135, spend the $ and send to DAG for a CLA. It will be less than mine was since he had to drill out some screws and really work on it. Leica would have probably charged 2-3X that and taken six months to a year (it took DAG about three months as it is). 

[pgk]

19 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I would do the same as long as the 46 T-E is a good price.

I paid abou 1/3 of that for my non-apo E46 version and its been fine. Prices do vary for it though and I've seen some at bargain figures others at double these. From the wiki here it looks as though ~2700 of the E46 version were made so its not a very common lens and prices do look as though they are increasing for it. Here's one currently available at a fair price from a reputable dealer: https://www.apertureuk.com/leica-135mm-f4-tele-elmar-m-alc143103.html.

[charlesphoto99]

45 minutes ago, pgk said:

I paid abou 1/3 of that for my non-apo E46 version and its been fine. Prices do vary for it though and I've seen some at bargain figures others at double these. From the wiki here it looks as though ~2700 of the E46 version were made so its not a very common lens and prices do look as though they are increasing for it. Here's one currently available at a fair price from a reputable dealer: https://www.apertureuk.com/leica-135mm-f4-tele-elmar-m-alc143103.html.

That's a great price - very tempting if I didn't have the APO. Alas my APO has about zero resell value, so my children can bury me with it. Not only the cosmetics from having screws drilled out, but I was getting the dreaded veiling flare while shooting my daughter's horse show in a poorly lit arena so I took the protective UV filter off to see if it would get better (it didn't) - and I promptly scratched the front of the lens on another lens putting it back in the bag before replacing the filter. Use those UV filters boys and girls! No loss to image quality I can see, and at half price of a new one I feel that I've certainly gotten my money's worth out of it and will continue to do so. 

Sunrise from our front window, 135mm APO, f4. From the series, mostly shot with the 135 APO and M10/M10-R, I'm calling "Photographs for Ambient Music." 

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!

[DBAUDUI1]

The 135 mm f3.4 Apo-Telyt is really a top performer, better than the Elmar, which are good too, but the APO is really a Apo lens and you see it eaven wide open. Also it is very light and quick + precise to focus. It is a wonder lens...

[Stuart Richardson]

Back in the early 2000s a salesman at Samy's Camera in Santa Barbara sold me a somewhat brassed/worn copy of the 135mm Tele Elmar E46 version. He sold it to me for 250 dollars, which was insane even at the time. It is still very sharp even on 47mp on the SL2. As people have said, stopped down to f5.6 and there is very little to complain about. I have not noticed severe bokeh fringing, but I mostly use it as a landscape lens. There is a bit of softness and CA at f4, but for architecture at f8 or f11 you will be more than satisfied, I am sure. I am sure the APO is better, and if the prices are somewhat similar, I am sure that is a better buy for the APO properties and lighter weight, but from a purely technical standpoint, the 135mm Tele-Elmar is still sharper than most Leica lenses in normal focal lengths. It is above 50-60% contrast in the MTF out to the edges at 5.6. Long story short, the APO will be better, but a good copy of the tele elmar is still better than nearly any 135mm lens out there, even though it dates to the sixties.

[pgk]

If you have a good copy of the T-E then 'upgrading' to the apo works on the law of dimishing returns - a lot of money for very little gain. Yes, higher quality output is probably there, but I'm really hard pushed to complain about the output of my E46 T-E; its still a very good lens even if a better one is now available.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M