135mm Lens on M8?

[wstotler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't forget the Elmar 135/4 folks. It is an excellent lens, even compared to modern ones, and it is not expensive at all. Rather tall lens but very light it is still my favorite for travels. Elmar 1:4 / 135mm - Leica Wiki (English)

 

Ditto. This is one of the lenses I use quite a lot on a Visoflex III for closeups. Cheers! Will

 

Samples:

Edited July 15, 2011 by wstotler

[ho_co]

... Or is Canada balsam just a term for some kind of glue? ...

A type of glue used in cementing lenses: Canada balsam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

I thought Wetzlar was in Germany and they didn't move production to Canada until the 1970s? Or is Canada balsam just a term for some kind of glue? What does the balsam do?

 

As Howard said there is plenty of info on the net on Canada Balsam. From memory it has a refractive index of around 1.5 and when you use it to join lenses together, you get a far lower refractive angle change than you would on a glass/air/glass join and it compensates for microscopically different curvatures in the mating lenses. Glass' refractive index varies from about 1.3 to 2.1 dependant on composition and air has a refractive index of close to 1.0.

 

The limitations of Canada Balsam became very evident when lenses started to go into space, where it deteriorated very quickly in the vacuum and high UV environment. I believe that it was a joint development between 3M, Elmer Perkins and Raytheon, which led to UV hardening epoxy lens bonding agents. Through their relationship with Raytheon at Leica Canada, Leica might well have had early access to this technology. It was certainly used on lenses like the series 2 135/2.8 Elmarit lenses made in Canada in the early 1970's. Malcolm Taylor says he shudders when he sees one of these coming in for repair, as it is close to impossible to separate the lens elements, due to the strength and insolubility of the epoxy bonding agent.

 

Wilson

[scsambrook]

Due to the natural (non-synthetic) Canada balsam used to bond the elements together, any Hektor is likely to have some degree of separation or fungus deterioration. I would class them as a "collector" rather than a "user" lens.

Wilson

 

I have to question this assertion which I think may needlessly deter the less experienced from looking at older lenses. My own Hektor, made in 1953, has neither separation nor fungus and gives pleasing images which are typical of contemporaneous lenses. Canada balsam does fail sometimes, and sometimes becomes discoloured as well, but the vast majorty of the lenses during the late 1940s and 1950s remain in perfectly useable condition. And the Hektor was hardly unique in using Canada balsam . . . I believe every other cemented lens made during its production life used the same medium to hold its elements together.

 

My comments are based on almost thirty years experience in the photo retail trade, which included a very large amount of dealing in used lenses.

[wlaidlaw]

I have to question this assertion which I think may needlessly deter the less experienced from looking at older lenses. My own Hektor, made in 1953, has neither separation nor fungus and gives pleasing images which are typical of contemporaneous lenses. Canada balsam does fail sometimes, and sometimes becomes discoloured as well, but the vast majorty of the lenses during the late 1940s and 1950s remain in perfectly useable condition. And the Hektor was hardly unique in using Canada balsam . . . I believe every other cemented lens made during its production life used the same medium to hold its elements together.

 

My comments are based on almost thirty years experience in the photo retail trade, which included a very large amount of dealing in used lenses.

 

I was thinking more of the pre-war Hektor lenses. I think lot of people are a tad over optimistic about the extent of fungus in their lenses. It is very difficult to see just by looking through the lens. I thought that my 1952 Elmar was just fine until my lens man shone a UV light through it and you could see the fungus strands fluorescing. I don't have the test photos with me in France but he took before and after cleaning test shots (and re-coating the front element) and there is a substantial improvement in both contrast and lack of flare.

 

I am not saying they will all be as bad as the dreadful example below of a 1950's Oplar 50mm but Malcolm Taylor advised me that the Hektor and V1 135 Elmarit-M lenses are two Leica lenses, where fungus is prevalent and I took his advice to buy a Tele-Elmar 135 instead. One reason is that these will inevitably (unless the owner was a bird photographer), be the lenses that have sat most of their life in a dark drawer or bag. Perfect conditions for growing fungus.

 

Wilson

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!

[lct]

...not saying they will all be as bad as the dreadful example below of a 1950's Oplar 50mm...

Dreadful noise at 640 iso as well. Tell me that it's been shot after the firmware update and it will cure my placebo sensitivity immediately.

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 4.5/135 Hektor was in production for a very long period: from 1934 to 1960. Many examples you find today on the second hand market are M-mount versions produced between 1954 and 1960. So probably one cannot generalize that you have to expect a 135mm Hektor having lens elements in bad condition. Though it is true that 135mm Hektors lenses often show signs of heavy usage: it was a workhorse and not a Sunday lens.

I don't know if early Hektors from pre-war times (they were in black) often suffered from separation of cemeted lens elements. This was - and still is - a problem with the 2/50 Summar, which already became obvbious in the first years after the war. Leitz made an official statement in 1950 or 1951, that rumours all Summars were swapped for new Summitars were not true, but customers could send their Summars to Wetzlar to repair them. I don't know of a similar statement about any other lens from this time. While you still find quite a lot of early 50mm Elmars with excellent glass, it is almost impossible to see a Summar in comparable conditions: the glass was much softer and probably they used a different sort of balsam, which was more prone to deterioration.

[JeTexas]

I went back by the shop and took another look. They were both chrome, M-mount Hektors. One had a pristine body but dismal looking glass that showed a lot of cleaning marks. The other had a bit rougher body but clear glass, so I grabbed it. The serial number puts it as a 1956 model. I figured, for $100, it's probably the cheapest Leica lens I'll come across, so why not?

 

Thanks for the info on Canada balsam. I had typed "balsam" into the dictionary, and it just came up with "tree sap," which was really confusing. I should have left Canada in the search string.

[wlaidlaw]

Dreadful noise at 640 iso as well. Tell me that it's been shot after the firmware update and it will cure my placebo sensitivity immediately.

 

I just grabbed my M8 as my M9 was on the Visoflex and did not even check the ISO. For these sort of shots, I normally use my Ricoh GX200 on macro but as the lens was not a Leica lens and wanting to stay within forum rules.... However, I am afraid it IS after the firmware update. I did wonder about the noise on the image but, as it was only to show the jungle of fungus on the Oplar, which it still did, I did not worry about it too much. Noise is always bad on dead black with the M8, especially if you boost the shadows from a JPEG rather than at conversion from a DNG. I only take in JPEG if I am posting direct to web, so I am not overly concerned.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

This was - and still is - a problem with the 2/50 Summar, which already became obvbious in the first years after the war. Leitz made an official statement in 1950 or 1951, that rumours all Summars were swapped for new Summitars were not true, but customers could send their Summars to Wetzlar to repair them. I don't know of a similar statement about any other lens from this time. While you still find quite a lot of early 50mm Elmars with excellent glass, it is almost impossible to see a Summar in comparable conditions: the glass was much softer and probably they used a different sort of balsam, which was more prone to deterioration.

 

My father's favourite 1936 vintage 50/2 Summar suffered from this, so he told me he left it in Amsterdam in the late 1940's during a business trip, where it was rebuilt and coated, with a brownish looking coating. He always preferred it to the later 50/2 Summitar he bought new in New York in 1953, which I still have, which he felt was too contrasty and clinically sharp - hmmmmm!

 

Wilson

[JeTexas]

So who actually uses the tripod mount on the 135 versus the tripod mount on the camera?

[lct]

....Noise is always bad on dead black with the M8, especially if you boost the shadows from a JPEG rather than at conversion from a DNG...

Yes M8 jpegs are not made for low light to say the least.

[Telyt2003]

Don't forget the Elmar 135/4 folks. It is an excellent lens, even compared to modern ones, and it is not expensive at all. Rather tall lens but very light it is still my favorite for travels. (...)

 

Oh no, never forget the Elmar 135/4 (from the early 1960s) .

I like it very much: It is already nearly at its best when fully opened (and does not become much better when stopped down).

Thus, it can be used without hesitation from aperture 4 onwards (in contrast to the Hektor 135/4,5).

 

For travels, I am often using only its small head with the Focorapid (via adapter 14114A) making 135 mm an extremely compact addition to the 200/280/400 mm set which can be used with it.

The image (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/191596-grab-frisbee.html#post1770911) is taken with the head of the Elmar 135/4 in the Focorapid with Visoflex2/3, M8 (probably at 5,6. As said, the Elmar is very usable at 4, and can remain fully open in lower light).

 

For sure, I also like (and prefer when possible) the Tele-Elmar 135/4 or the incredible Apo-Telyt 135/3,4 directly on the M8 (please see here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1412883-post11.html).

Only the Hektor 135/4,5, albeit in excellent condition and also focusing perfectly on the M8, gets less use, and only for special purposes .

Best regards,

Telyt2003

Edited July 15, 2011 by Telyt2003
correction

[lct]

Only problems are the lack of 135mm frame lines with the M8 and the low magnification of its VF which renders focusing difficult at wide aperture. The Elmarit 135/2.8 is significantly bulkier but resolves those issues. Here Elmarit 11829 at f/2.8 (clock) and f/5.6 (ship). (6 MB files, handheld)

[Telyt2003]

So who actually uses the tripod mount on the 135 versus the tripod mount on the camera?

 

Hello JeTexas,

with 135 mm lenses, I am actually trying to avoid tripod or monopod, but sometimes use a Novoflex Pistock-C with adapter plate PLATTE-U, or the much smaller collapsible shoulder supports which were formerly offered by BRAUN (very nice, but hard to find today).

Since most 135 mm lenses don't have a tripod mount on their barrels, I am generally used to attaching the shoulder/chest supports to the camera.

In the case of the Pistock-C, I just turn the adapter PLATTE-U by 90 degrees so that it is parallel with the M's bottom plate. The Pistock-C itself is adjusted vertically beneath the camera and carried with its strap around the neck.

 

However, mounting the 135 mm focal lenses directly on whatever shoulder support restricts my choice of format (strongly limiting me to the horizontal format).

Therefore, I tend to avoid "tethered" 135 mm lenses - with the exception of the Elmar 135/4 head in the Focorapid or in short mount with OUBIO and Visoflex2/3 which both can be switched between horizontal and vertical format . (This works the same with the head of the Hektor 135/4,5).

 

I often carry a monopod with attached ball head and Pistock-C for use with really long lenses. When not in use, it is carried slung diagonally over the right shoulder in such a way that I can rest my left ellbow on the monopod/Pistock to my left side. THIS stabilises photos with whatever focal length very efficiently.

 

Best regards,

Telyt2003

[Telyt2003]

Only problems are the lack of 135mm frame lines with the M8 and the low magnification of its VF which renders focusing difficult at wide aperture. The Elmarit 135/2.8 is significantly bulkier but resolves those issues. ...

 

Bonjour lct,

 

you remember me of my attemps to get one of these "significantly bulkier" (impressive!) Elmarit 135/2,8 lenses, for example on the dusty photo market in Bièvre where I finally bought (a bit frustrated ) my first Tele-Elmar 135/4, because I couldn't find an Elmarit.

 

Today I know that this day in Bièvre was a lucky day , because thinking of how I pack my daypack for photographing, the Elmarit 135/2,8 would have rested at home nearly exclusively, and I would probably not have discovered how useful this focal lenght is with the M6 and esp. the M8.

 

The lack of frames? Since I got used to the angle of view of the 135 mm lens, I do no longer notice their absence! Or should I complain about the "absence" of the 75 mm frame, or the "inaccurary" of several over frames, or that I do not see (much of) the 28 and even 35 mm frames ... No, because after a while you no longer need them ! (frames actually distract me more than they help, esp. if they come in pairs

- not because I would mix'em up).

 

For sure, the 135 mm focal length, as discussed elsewhere and you will know, is at the limit with the M(8) (To make good use of it, the lens and the camera need to be well adjusted, including the horizontal alignment, and I would recommend the 1,4x finder magnifier. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1412883-post11.html, and post 21 therein).

 

The Apo-Telyt 135/3,4, esp. at exactly 3,4, is one of the lenses which I would really miss, and since I have it, I did not think a nanosecond about the Elmarit .

 

Best regards,

Telyt2003

Edited July 18, 2011 by Telyt2003
typos

[Nikkor AIS]

 

 

 

 

Iv been really happy with my 135 2.8 Elmarit. So far, I been handholding it with decent results. While some might worry about the size and weight of the 135 2.8 Elmarit, for me it's just right. A lot of lens/magnification in a realitivly small package.

 

Gregory

[lct]

Bonjour lct, …The lack of frames? Since I got used to the angle of view of the 135 mm lens, I do no longer notice their absence! Or should I complain about the "absence" of the 75 mm frame, or the "inaccurary" of several over frames, or that I do not see (much of) the 28 and even 35 mm frames ... No, because after a while you no longer need them !...

Hi Telyt, well i've been taking 2 or 3 not so bad pics w/o frame lines already but i miss the comfort they provided on the M3 with my good old Elmar 135/4 and using an add-on VF or aiming at a tiny virtual rectangle in a low mag. viewfinder is not my cup of tea if any. This said, the goggles of the Elmarit are far from accurate i agree, it's just a good aid for me. Magnifiers with regular 135? Yes why not, although i don't like much my 1.25x personally, but it does not replace the 135mm frame lines anyway.

[Telyt2003]

Hi Telyt, well i've been taking 2 or 3 not so bad pics w/o frame lines already but i miss the comfort they provided on the M3 with my good old Elmar 135/4 and using an add-on VF or aiming at a tiny virtual rectangle in a low mag. viewfinder is not my cup of tea if any. This said, the goggles of the Elmarit are far from accurate i agree, it's just a good aid for me. Magnifiers with regular 135? Yes why not, although i don't like much my 1.25x personally, but it does not replace the 135mm frame lines anyway.

 

Hi lct,

If you don't like the 1,25x magnifier, you may perhaps give the newer 1,4x magnifier a try! Since I have both of them, I nearly exclusively use the 1,4x, mostly with 90 and 135 mm lenses (but normally not with shorter focal lengths, since I need to wear glasses and do not see much outside the 50 mm frame anyway). The 1,4x magnifier mostly remains attached to the camera strap in its leather case by now.

 

I find the 1,4x magnifier much more agreable than the 1,25x (I can not say why exactly, but my impression is that I see LESS black at the borders as compared to the 1,25x). I would recommend giving the 1,4x a try .

 

Please allow me - you already said it's not your cup of tea - this hint that you likely know: Guestimating, with the 1,4x magnifier attached, the 135 mm frame by assuming an area 'marked' by the height of the rangefinder patch (all around this patch) worked quite nice for me, before it became an automatism.

(And at the beginning, I quite often checked the accuracy of my framing on the screen - a possibility which I cannot praise enough).

 

BTW, when I need a maximum of overview in the viewfinder (relatively limited, as said), the 90 and 135 mm lenses are also used without magnifiers.

 

Best regards,

Telyt2003

Edited July 19, 2011 by Telyt2003
typo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

This trick seems to have been lost in the mist of time:

 

After the lens has clicked in, press the lens release and overrotate the lens against the stop. This brings up the 90 mm framelines which are quite good for 135 mm (just slightly too large) on the M8. As the focussing cam is flat on 135 mm lenses because they have an internal helicoid, focussing will remain accurate.