135mm Apo-telyt and the M9

[Peter Branch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reading the brochure it states quite clearly that this 135mm lens can only be used within certain parameters one of which is stopping down by 2 stops.

 

Does anyone have any idea why this is?

 

In my opinion the current 135mm is one of the very best M lenses. I have resisted selling mine although I found it impractical on the M8. It seems it is only going to be of marginal use on an M9 as high shutter speeds are essential to avoid camera shake.

[jaapv]

Before the M8 was introduced Leica stated emphatically that the 135 Apo could not be used. Reason I sold it when (I thought:() the going was still good. We all know now that there is absolutely no problem using it on the M8:mad:. I suspect this is something similar.

[zeitz]

It has to do with the rangefinder baseline and .68x viewing. Theoretically you can't focus accurately enough wide-open. Nothing to stop you from shoting wide open if you the focusing skills. The other option is to use the 1.4x finder magnifier.

 

DAG, Golden Touch, Steve's? Are any one you willing to do a conversion to put the "eyes" from a 2.8 Elmarit on a Apo-Teylt? It would add a lot of weight, but I'ld be first in line for the conversion.

[perb]

I really hope you are right on this, because I can also imagine the extreme microlens arrangement optimized for wide angles could have negative effects on longer focal lengths.

 

Regards

Per

[doubice]

 

........DAG, Golden Touch, Steve's? Are any one you willing to do a conversion to put the "eyes" from a 2.8 Elmarit on a Apo-Teylt? It would add a lot of weight, but I'ld be first in line for the conversion.

 

Would not work, since the linearity of the focusing cam's movement and of the focusing mount's movement are different on the 'goggled' lens. You would only be able to achieve correct focus with the lens set to infinity. At closer distances, focusing using the rangefinder would not be accurate anymore. The complete focusing system of the 'Apo' would have to be re-done; this would not make sense economically and unless done with 1/100th mm precision, would not be accurate enough.

 

I am quite certain that, the reason Leica suggests stopping down a couple of stops when using a 135mm lens, is to increase the depth of field and thus decrease the possibility of inaccurate focusing. Having said that - I am using the 4/135mm Tele-Elmar (not the Apo) on the M8 and with careful focusing technique the results are great.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[JSU]

I have used my 135 Tele-Elmar wide open on my M8.2 with acceptable results. I use the 1.4x VF magnifier but the rub is the inconvenience of holding the VF selector to the 90mm marks. Feedback from the monitor helps in framing following shots.

 

I can't image that it would be that much different using the Apo-Telyt 135/3.4.

 

And the M9 is reported to once again offer the pairing of 35mm & 135mm frame lines.

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The googles are just magnifiers. The 35mm has been successfully mounted to 21mm, per Eastland's book.

 

I've measured the movement of both the Elmarit and the Tele-Elmar. They are both exactly the same. I don't know how the Apo-Telyt could be different (I don't have one to measure), unless there is some real complex compensation going on in the lens mount. The pitch of the focusing mount to move the cam must work exactly the same with the arm in the body on all 135mm lenses for the rangefinder to be accurate.

[JSU]

The goggles on the 135/2.8 are true magnifiers, those used on the 35mm's intended for use on the M3 are demagnifiers.

 

The magnifiers, and demagnifiers, are fixed and do not move, nor are they specifically tied to the actual focus of the lens which is a relationship between the lens and the rangefinder mechanism.

 

The screw on VF magnifiers of today, the 1.25x & 1.4x, accomplish essentially the very same thing as the goggles of the 135/2.8. The beauty of the VF magnifiers is that they accomplish with but one small lens set at the ocular what necessitates a paired set of lenses for each side of the rangefinder, and VF, for the goggled lenses.

 

I got my first M3 in 1974 and my eyes have aged accordingly. I have come to rely heavily on both the 1.25x and 1.4x magnifiers with my M8.2's, and actually appreciate a return to the viewfinder FoV's of the M6 .85 and the M3, respectively. For use with my 35mm & 60mm f-1.2 lenses, the magnifiers are crucial for wide open consistent focussing accuracy.

 

My guess is the use of these magnifiers is Leica's alternative offering to the varied magnifed VF's of their later film cameras.

[ho_co]

Peter--zeitz is correct.

 

The 0.72x finder is the minimum to allow the 135/3.4 to be focused accurately with the naked eye. If you use a 1.25x magnifier on the 0.68x finder, you bring it to the equivalent of 0.85x, more than enough to focus accurately.

 

LFI had an article on the topic (by Michael Hußmann IIRC) before the introduction of the M8.

 

But remember, we're talking "Leica tolerances" here.

 

With the magnifier, you're fine. Even without it, a lot of people are very happy with the lens on the M8.

 

Just use it at any aperture you want, realizing that wider apertures present greater focusing demands.

 

 

BTW--Good job!

I'm glad you discovered the aperture warning for the skinny 135s. I hadn't seen it. That explains why the M9 has the 135 frames.

[luigi bertolotti]

It has to do with the rangefinder baseline and .68x viewing. Theoretically you can't focus accurately enough wide-open. Nothing to stop you from shoting wide open if you the focusing skills. The other option is to use the 1.4x finder magnifier.

 

DAG, Golden Touch, Steve's? Are any one you willing to do a conversion to put the "eyes" from a 2.8 Elmarit on a Apo-Teylt? It would add a lot of weight, but I'ld be first in line for the conversion.

 

Would be nice, but I think in practical use not so much different from a 1,4x magnifier, to justify the difference in price & handling.

BTW... this question of 135 "supported" on M9 (and the obvious interest about this fine focal on a FF) makes me think that Cosina Voigtlander could have some idea on the topic... and given the indication on stopping down, they could bring out a fine supercompact f 4,5 or even f5 lens (goggled ?....or maybe "macro too"...)

[jaapv]

I really hope you are right on this, because I can also imagine the extreme microlens arrangement optimized for wide angles could have negative effects on longer focal lengths.

 

Regards

Per

Yes, but those would get worse with stopping down.

[doubice]

The googles are just magnifiers. The 35mm has been successfully mounted to 21mm, per Eastland's book.

 

I've measured the movement of both the Elmarit and the Tele-Elmar. They are both exactly the same. I don't know how the Apo-Telyt could be different (I don't have one to measure), unless there is some real complex compensation going on in the lens mount. The pitch of the focusing mount to move the cam must work exactly the same with the arm in the body on all 135mm lenses for the rangefinder to be accurate.

 

Zeitz,

 

..."The googles are just magnifiers. The 35mm has been successfully mounted to 21mm, per Eastland's book."...

 

There is a difference between a 'successful mounting' and 'accurate focusing' once the 'mounting' was done...... I own a 2.8/21mm Asph. Elmarit, which had the 35mm goggles installed by the late Rheinhold Müller - one of the best Canadian Leica technicians, who used to be the Service Manager of Wild Leitz Canada.

 

With the goggles in place, the lens will NOT focus correctly via the rangefinder. The goggles are great to use if you guess-focus the 21mm Elmarit and do not like using an external finder. The Elmarit keys in the 28mm frame, the goggles have a 0.7x magnification; 28mm x 0.7 = 19.6 (close enough to 21mm view). I am now using the lens without the goggles on the M8 and the rangefinder works correctly.

 

The goggles of the 3.5/35mm Summaron, the first 35mm lens for the M3, were removable. They were removable for an only reason - ease of storage. Once removed, the focusing mount was locked in place so that one could not use the lens accidentally without the goggles (some people tried to use it sans the goggles on an M2, which had a 35mm frame built-in - would not work). If you remove the goggles from the 2.8/135mm Elmarit, rangefinder focusing at distances closer than infinity will also not be accurate anymore. If you own the lens, try it.

 

At the time Rheinhold did the 21mm conversion for me, I asked him if he could do the same for the Tele-Elmar, using the goggles from the 2.8 Elmarit. His answer was an uneqivocal "NO" for the reasons I mentioned in my original post and above. You cannot 'guess-focus' a 135mm lens.......

 

Unfortunately, the only way to improve the Leica rangefinder's focusing accuracy with a 135mm lens is a magnifier behind the eyepiece. And before somebody brings it up - yes, I know about the Visoflex........... I own one.......

 

Best,

 

Jan

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!

[dpstjp]

I

And the M9 is reported to once again offer the pairing of 35mm & 135mm frame lines.

 

Which makes me wonder if the 135 APO will now get its own 6-bit coding...

[luigi bertolotti]

Which makes me wonder if the 135 APO will now get its own 6-bit coding...

Why not ? Is a longtime lens, costly, and I think they can afford the small investiment into a little modification of the manufacturing cycle... just to assess that all listed lenses are coded.