View Full Version : Any 135mm shooters out there?
Or 90mm with the Epson RD-1?
In celebration of this much-maligned, often overlooked, ridiculously underpriced optic, here are a few shots with a Nikkor 13.5cm f/3.5. It's actually one of my favorite lenses. Anyone else out there who keeps scanning the world with a slightly more distant gaze?
Only on a SLR, Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8. Great lens!
I have the J11 (135/4) on my Kiev's, and have used them a bit. My subjects were usually a little further away so that parallax wasn't a problem.
OTOH, my "normal" lense on my 4x5 Anniversary Graphics is a 135mm Tessar :).
I don't think I could hold a 135 steady which kind of defeats the purpose of a RF camera in my mind. I do have one for an SLR, but even that gets little use.
wlewisiii
10-03-2005, 12:04
I use my 135/4 Sonnar on my Kievs reasonably often. I find it quite useful when shooting barns from the road.
William
Or 90mm with the Epson RD-1?
In celebration of this much-maligned, often overlooked, ridiculously underpriced optic, here are a few shots with a Nikkor 13.5cm f/3.5. It's actually one of my favorite lenses. Anyone else out there who keeps scanning the world with a slightly more distant gaze?
This may be slightly OT but probably as good a place as any to ask. I recently obtained both a vintage S2 and, as a companion, a Bessa R2S for backup.
The manual for the R2S recommends (commands?) that the user only use the lens barrell focus for lenses greater than 50mm to avoid undue and potentially damaging strain to the focus wheel mechanism.
The S2 manual (admittedly ancient) contains no such cautionary language.
Bessa's recommendation sounds like a wise (or at least prudent) one. Any thoughts?
Only on a SLR, Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8. Great lens!
Same here, SLR only. I have a 28-135 zoom and yes, I have used it racked out all the way sometimes.
Honu-Hugger
10-03-2005, 12:45
Ouch! Sometimes the truth hurts...I have to confess to never having used a very nice 135/4 "T" coated Sonnar (it has been through Henry Scherer's service and I even went to the trouble of finding the correct hood for it). Your beautiful photos may inspire me into action :). Thank you for posting them and for raising the question.
Brian Sweeney
10-03-2005, 13:12
On the S2: (EDIT) Page 20 of my original S2 the manual states not to use the focus wheel for long lenses. The Nikon S manual states the same warning. So does the SP manual... (Flaunt it baby, Flaunt it!)
You can use the wheel for wide-angle lenses, and I have used it with the 3.5cm F2.5 lens. If the mount is "dry", I would not push it. NEVER oil the helical. Soak it in gasoline, after removing it from the camera.
I use my 135mm's a good bit, took the 13.5cm F3.5 Nikkor in LTM to the zoo last month with the Canon VI-T. The RF position worked well with the lens. I have a fair number of 125's, including the Canon 135 F3.5. The latter is shorter than the Nikkor. I have the Nikkor in S-Mount, LTM, and 'c'ontax mount.
1) S2 (modified for 52.3mm standard) with Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 for 'C'ontax.
2) Canon 7 w 13.5cm F3.5 Nikkor in LTM
ZeissFan
10-03-2005, 13:20
The 135mm Sonnar is one of the best deals for Contax glass. I prefer the West German version, as it doesn't have the problem of the griding aluminum helical. I've had two very nice versions -- sold one earlier this year.
The 135mm Sonnar is very sharp, and if you can live with the f/4.0 max aperture, it's a nice lens indeed.
One of the nicer things about this particular lens, compared with other lenses from that era, is that it close focuses to about 5 feet. Many other lenses will only close focus to about 11 or 13 feet, which rules it out for portraits.
I'm not sure how the Nikkor is, but I would expect it to be similar or identical in features and performance to the Sonnar. Judging from the photos, I would say that is the case with the addition of a slight speed advantage.
On the S2: (EDIT) Page 20 of my original S2 the manual states not to use the focus wheel for long lenses. The Nikon S manual states the same warning. So does the SP manual... (Flaunt it baby, Flaunt it!)
You can use the wheel for wide-angle lenses, and I have used it with the 3.5cm F2.5 lens......
Brian,
Thanks. I must have missed it. I got the manual separately from Craig Camera a few days after the S2 and by time it arrived had already read the "advisory" in R2S manual. So probably just "glanced" at it in S2 manual w/o it "registering".
My S2 came with the 135/4 and I just now obtained a 43mm UV filter for it. I have a rule, I don't use a lens w/o a protective filter (I read some others here who disagree, but it's my camera and my rule). Now that the lens is "protected" I look forward to trying it out and hopefully posting some results soon.
Regards,
George
I have a Jupiter-11 for travel and a Tele-Emarit for here, and a 0.85 mag camera to use them one. :) Below is a pic from the TE wide-open. Fantastic lens!
135? Not for me. I'm of the Robert Capa school ("If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"). Even when shooting a head-portrait I like to get really close, never mind the distortion. I never have the urge to shoot anything longer than the "normal" length of the given medium.
I hope to be a 135 user as soon as my 135/2.8 Komura LTM gets back from Essex. I plan to use it on my R-D 1 as a light, compact, easily hand-holdable "200mm" lens. Just hope my accessory viewfinder can be made to point in the same direction!
Closest I get now to the 135 focal length is using a 100/2 Canon on the aforementioned R-D 1. This is a handy size, has excellent reach and speed, and is fabulously sharp! I've also got an 85, which would "equivalate" more closely to 135mm, but I just really like that 100...
I read somewhere (probably here) that the 135 is one of the easiest lenses to design so that all of them tend to be pretty good/excellent. The Tele Emarit looks awfully nice. I never did get a Jupter-11 for my Kiev. Instead I used a Nikkor "c" Contax mount lens back when I used the Kiev more often. The Nikon SP and S3 have 1:1 finders which make the 135 pretty easy to use.
I was a Nikon SLR shooter for many years before getting into rangefinders, so I learned to "see" with medium telephotos, particularly the Nikkor 180. So when I switched to rangefinders, taking up the 135mm lens seemed very natural.
I think it might be difficult to focus really long lenses on an RD-1. I'd still give it a try though, if I had one. I used a primitive digital camera in the mid-1990s, an NC-2000, and really enjoyed the fact that I suddenly didn't need to carry anything longer than a 135mm for long-lens SLR work.
I can't say that I use a 135 regularly. However, sometimes you have to get in close, but you aren't able to stand close to the subject. Example: A top hat and white gloves in the back of a RR Silver Wraith, which was not my car and in a display mode.
The above photo is with a 90mm Elmar, working with ISO 100 and running out of light.
One other reason to use a long lens is that 35mm means small negatives and real estate is precious, especially along the 24mm dimension of the frame.
The same day, but standing behind the rear of a more spartan subject, a bug eye sprite. If a crop was necessary, then one doesn't have what amounts to piece of micro film.
>>sometimes you have to get in close, but you aren't able to stand close to the subject<<
That's one of the reasons I like 135mm on a rangefinder. It's the lens that allows you to get the closest. Not macro, but still very close. Below is the Nikkor 13.5cm at its minimum focus, 5 feet. Wide open at f/3.5. Shutter speed was 1/15th or 1/30th. I used a kitchen chair for a makeshift tripod.
zeos 386sx
10-03-2005, 18:51
Theaters, Leica M's and 135mm f/2.8 Elmarits are made for each other. I like the focal length.
I can't say that I use a 135 regularly. However, sometimes you have to get in close, but you aren't able to stand close to the subject. Example: A top hat and white gloves in the back of a RR Silver Wraith, which was not my car and in a display mode.
This is a great photo. Even not being a Brit it makes me think of 'toffs and the better elements of society.
This picture says to me: "Why is it that the class I once cursed is the one to whiich I aspire?"
To another it may say" "Cursed to the priviledged; for they are the burden we all must forebear."
GREAT PHOTO!
135? Not for me. I'm of the Robert Capa school ("If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"). Even when shooting a head-portrait I like to get really close, never mind the distortion. I never have the urge to shoot anything longer than the "normal" length of the given medium.
Noble sentiment.
But remember, Capa got himself blown up.
And, I, as a WTC 9/11 survivor (yeah, really) may not be too comfortable with the "up close and personal" in certain "situations".
Seems to me, let the lens suit the photo op - not the other way around.
The only 135's I have are for my M-42 SLR's. Very nice Hanimex 2.8's are what I have. I might have to keep my eye out for a J-11 for my Zorki-4 to go with my J-8 and J-12.
Heath
I have one for my Pentax SLRs, never had a rangefinder that could handle one (although that will change shortly). It's a great lens but I've never really been comfortable with the perspective at that length; also, since I tend to forget my tripod or monopod when I'm rushing out the door I've never really been able to employ it to best effect. Probably just means I need to practice more.
I only recently obtained 85/2 and 135/4 for my Kiev, and switching the vision to long focal mode takes conscious effort. Am getting the hang of 85mm for the streets now, and it is a fabulous portrait lens of course. Still need to get used to the 135.
Varjag, are you shooting color or B&W with the Jupiter 9?
Brian Sweeney
10-04-2005, 02:41
> My S2 came with the 135/4 and I just now obtained a 43mm UV filter for it
George,
Is that the Nikkor 135mm F4? I know the Nikkor F3.5 lens takes 43mm filters, I thought the F4 lens took 40.5mm filters.
I keep filters on all of my lenses for protection. Getting some of them is a chore. I bought about 8 Canon 43mm coated filters from Woodmerecamera at a show, and have most of them used up. Getting 40mm filters is even harder, and I use a lot of Series VI adapters.
Stephanie Brim
10-04-2005, 02:45
What would be nice is if Voigtlander stepped up and started producing filters in some of these hard-to-find sizes so that we don't have to go scurrying around the 'bay or worse anymore. I'm going to have to look for B&W filters in 40.5mm size eventually and that's going to be a chore. Importing them out of Japan is going to really hit my budget.
Solinar, BW only so far; I don't shoot color film often.
I use my apo-telyt 3.4/135 for just about anything when I feel like it,saves me a lot of cropping :D For these, I would have had to swim to get them with a shorter length.
Nikon Bob
10-04-2005, 03:55
I have a 135/3.5 for my nikon SLR and a 135/4.5 Hector for my IIIf. They are both capable lenses but I just find 85/90 focal lengths are more generally useful for me. If I only had a 135 then I would make it work for me.
Bob
Uncle Bill
10-04-2005, 04:13
I have a Hecktor 135 I got for a song that I don't use that much and I should more often.
Bill
Nikon Bob
10-04-2005, 04:30
Bill
The Hector 135/4.5 was a real surprise for me in how good it can be. It is even more useful now with the excellent fast films available today.
Bob
>> My S2 came with the 135/4 and I just now obtained a 43mm UV filter for it<<
Some video camcorders (Sony, I think) use 43mm filters, so these have become more widely available in recent years. A decade ago, junk bins in European camera shops were awash with 40.5mm filters. I don't know if that's still the case, but I scavanged a lifetime supply that way. Plus a few gems like Zeiss 40.5 UV and yellow thin-ring filters for the 21mm Biogon.
Some people disagree, but I've always shot with a filter. In my mind, the protection factor outweighs any tiny image loss with a good filter. And I've dropped and banged just enough cameras to smash, shatter and bend my fair share of filters. With the older lenses I use, a good sunshade is the most important way to ensure a good image, not going filterless. On the other hand, I was convinced for a year that my Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 was really overrated, because its images were blurred and lifeless. Then I removed the filter I'd kept constantly on it and discovered it was perhaps the sharpest lens I'd ever owned. It had been a high-quality filter (Heliopan, I think), but perhaps it hadn't aged well, because it had totally degraded the lens.
> My S2 came with the 135/4 and I just now obtained a 43mm UV filter for it
George,
Is that the Nikkor 135mm F4? I know the Nikkor F3.5 lens takes 43mm filters, I thought the F4 lens took 40.5mm filters.
I keep filters on all of my lenses for protection. Getting some of them is a chore. I bought about 8 Canon 43mm coated filters from Woodmerecamera at a show, and have most of them used up. Getting 40mm filters is even harder, and I use a lot of Series VI adapters.
Brian,
When I wrote that I could have just walked two feet over to the cabinet and confirmed. (I'm so "new" to this gear that I should rely on aging memory cells! :bang: )
It must be the 3.5 since the 43mm filter fits as is the case with the 50mm and the Skopar 25.
I'm fortunate to reside in NYC so usually I can get hard-to-find filters at B&H or Adorama. But I usually first check The Filter Connection @ http://www.2filter.com/ since they are usually lower in price than the big guys, offer free shipping for a relatively low miniumum price order and, being in neighboring CT deliver quickly w/o me having to pay sales tax. :cool:
Regards,
George
I meant:
"When I wrote that I could have just walked two feet over to the cabinet and confirmed. (I'm so "new" to this gear that I SHOULDN'T rely on aging memory cells! :bang: )"
See what I mean? Organic RAM definitely breaking down! :(
BTW: I just checked the The Filter Connection site ]http://www.2filter.com/ and they carry both Hoya and B+W 40.5mm UV filters. Didn't check to see if they have skylights and others - worth a browse if you need some though..
Regards,
George
rick oleson
10-04-2005, 06:04
I picked up a 135/4.5 LTM Leitz Hektor from KEH (rated "UG") several years ago, for $29. Not knowing what to expect from the lowest condition rating, I was surprised when it arrived: not the slightest hint of a cleaning mark on it, except for some scuffs on the chrome it's in really excellent shape.
Only problem I've had with it has been a tendency toward looseness between the viewfinder foot and the shoe of the camera, which at 135mm can lead to serious framing errors. I've taken to abandoning the separate finder, framing on the rangefinder spot and guessing around the edges, and gotten better results.......
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/colortwo/page1.html
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/colortwo/page4.html
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/colortwo/page11.html
I also have a 135/4 Sonnar for the Kievs and Contaxes.......
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/colortwo/index.html
: ) =
Rick, while we're here I should mention that an underscore ('_') is not a valid character in the Internet domain name standard. Some nameservice implementations still resolve it, but the one we've stuck here with does not.
I often see your site referred from 'useful links' sections of various resources, but can only wonder what's in there.
rick_oleson.tripod.com currently resolves to 209.202.240.100, so just put the following entry in your hosts file w/o the quotes, and it doesn't matter whether you use spaces or tabs. If you're using W2K or XP, then it's located in "c:\windows\system32\drives\etc\hosts" (substitute winnt for windows if necessary, make a copy of the hosts.sam if one does not already exist). On Unix/Linux, it's /etc/hosts. PM me if you need more help with this.
"209.202.240.100 rick_oleson.tripod.com"
rick oleson
10-04-2005, 06:49
Thanks. I've been aware of that for some time... but my website is over 6 years old and 50MB deep, and it's a little late to pull it up now.
If you can't get to it, try typing the URL in the format of:
http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson ..... this works for most people who have trouble with the underscore.
At one time I did go through and retype every internal link in this format, only to then discover that these are cached copies and the host didn't update the cache real quickly, which caused other problems, so I had to go through it and change them all back.
I COULD just scrap the whole thing and start over, but I haven't got the energy...... I apologize for the inconvenience.
: ) =
Thanks. I've been aware of that for some time... but my website is over 6 years old and 50MB deep, and it's a little late to pull it up now.
If you can't get to it, try typing the URL in the format of:
http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson ..... this works for most people who have trouble with the underscore.
At one time I did go through and retype every internal link in this format, only to then discover that these are cached copies and the host didn't update the cache real quickly, which caused other problems, so I had to go through it and change them all back.
I COULD just scrap the whole thing and start over, but I haven't got the energy...... I apologize for the inconvenience.
: ) =
Had no problem getting in using Mozilla
Stephanie Brim
10-04-2005, 08:34
I have the Firefox and I had no problem either.
wlewisiii
10-04-2005, 08:46
Has nothing to do with the browsers. The DNS nameserver software doesn't always translate the name to IP address correctly because _ is not a proper character for a domain name. The browser hands the name in the link to the nameserver and it either translates it or not. Most do, but not all - and those that don't includes the nameserver that Varjag uses.
William
Silva Lining
10-04-2005, 08:54
I often use a 135mm f/4 Super Dynaret on my Voigtlander Vitessa T. It is a nice, sharp lens that is quite contrasty. Focusing becomes v. difficult in lower light though
Noble sentiment.
But remember, Capa got himself blown up.
And, I, as a WTC 9/11 survivor (yeah, really) may not be too comfortable with the "up close and personal" in certain "situations".
Seems to me, let the lens suit the photo op - not the other way around.
Yeah, I knew someone wouldn't let me get away with that. :)
Seriously, though, many of the photos posted in this thread are gorgeous, but no photograph taken with a tele lens ever gave me GAS for one. OTOH, _any_ photo taken with an XPan and 30mm lens gives me the worst case of GAS ever, because that perspective exactly matches my way of seeing, while the tele view simply does not.
rick oleson
10-04-2005, 10:53
i'm kind of the opposite way round: i seem to see at about 85mm most of the time, anything around 35mm usually just doesn't show what i was seeing.
Yep, 85mm to 90mm is easier for me conceptualize as well. They are also more compact and easier to use in hand-held photography.
Brian Sweeney
10-04-2005, 13:22
I use my RF's mostly with 50 and up. Now, in the Nikon SLR line-up I've got a 20, 21, 24, 28, 35, and 35PC. I use an "E" screen (grid lines) with the F or F2 and their 100% viewfinders. I also have a few telephoto's for them, including an AIS 135mm F3.5 Nikkor. It is the same optical formula as the RF lens. Very long run.
Rick et al, I think it's great that different people see differently. Imagine how boring it would be if everyone took only wide angle photos, or only tele.
Gawd, Brian, why on earth do you need a 20 *and* a 21? I knew you were an equipment junkie, but this really takes the cake. :p
I have just acquired a 135/4 Jena Sonnar whilst on a recent trip to the UK, so was interested in the earlier comments on the lens. Whereas I have both Nikon and Canon 135 primes for SLR's, I have tended to use a shorter focal length - 85 or 105 mm for portraits. It will be interesting to see how the Sonnar works out, and more especially how good my use of the in built rangefinder is before it gets realigned.
rick oleson
10-04-2005, 18:42
The 135 Sonnar (like all Sonnars) is a good lens.... the central rangefinder spot of a Contax (or a Kiev) is something around the size of a 200mm frame, so it's not hard to use it as an aiming point for a 135 and estimate where the edges of the field will be.
I also made slip-on VF masks for the 85 and 135 lenses for the Contax II and IIa, which are fairly handy - but they slip on from the front, and won't go on the IIIa that you have pictured.... : ( =
Honu-Hugger
10-04-2005, 20:13
I use my RF's mostly with 50 and up. Now, in the Nikon SLR line-up I've got a 20, 21, 24, 28, 35, and 35PC. I use an "E" screen (grid lines) with the F or F2 and their 100% viewfinders. I also have a few telephoto's for them, including an AIS 135mm F3.5 Nikkor. It is the same optical formula as the RF lens. Very long run.
Speaking of the 135/3.5 Nikkor I found this set tonight in Contax mount. Although I use the 85 more often I couldn't pass on this:
Seriously, though, many of the photos posted in this thread are gorgeous, but no photograph taken with a tele lens ever gave me GAS for one. OTOH, _any_ photo taken with an XPan and 30mm lens gives me the worst case of GAS ever, because that perspective exactly matches my way of seeing, while the tele view simply does not.
Hello Ronnie!
The Tele-Elmar is one of the most demanding lenses I own (especially on an M2 lacking the frame for 135mm) but the contrast and resolution wide open are dazzling (even Erwin Puts has a hard time defining how the Apo Telyt is better 30 years later). I forced myself to use it for a whole 36 exposure roll (39 actually) one morning at the zoo this summer. I certainly wouldn't have liked to use a wide-angle with this tweety.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18098&cat=500&page=1
Probably the best bang for the buck in the very strange world of used Leitz lenses! But you can have mine if you bring a XpanII with any lens. :p
Regards,
ag
That's a lovely photo, Alec... but still no GAS (in case you were trying). I'm not remotely interested in photographing birds, myself. :) Whenever I go to the zoo, I tend to photogaph the people looking at the animals.
The Leica M Lens Price Guide (http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/a.htm) puts a used 135/4 Tele-Elmar Type 1 at $375. That's not cheap. I got a collapsible 50/2 Summicron for 180 Euros - now *that* is cheap. It gets a heck of a lot of use, too. Anyone wanna buy a Jupiter-8 before it gathers dust? ;)
Hello Ronnie.
No I wasn't - I'm not selling. :p
I got mine with a ding on the filter ring for next to nothing from my favourite Paris shop (Objectif Bastille). The nice salesman winced when I told him I wanted a rear cap free of charge on the deal.
IIRC it was under 150 EUR (a psychological threshold that made me think faster - reasoning like "I shouldn't care I don't have a 135mm frame because when there is one it's too small to be useful anyway").
This thread has survived a bit longer than I expected, so I'll also point out that the 135mm can be used as a sports lens. It's helpful to learn the 1950s trick of "predictive focusing" -- focus a bit ahead of the action, then wait for them to get into the zone of focus.
rick oleson
10-06-2005, 19:58
I keep hearing about bargains..... but has anybody beat my $29 135mm hektor?
(cheap is good)
: ) =
Nope. I paid closer to $100 for mine.
By the way, really enjoyed your site. For those having trouble viewing it, believe me, it's worth the effort.
I keep hearing about bargains..... but has anybody beat my $29 135mm hektor?
(cheap is good)
: ) =
I paid 25 EUR for mine, which is a bit more (something like $30?), but still... ;)
Denis
Now that *is* cheap. Where did you get it, Rick and Denis?
rick oleson
10-07-2005, 03:58
Mine was from KEH Camera Brokers (www.KEH.com) ... it's amazing how low they'll price something when they don't think it's cosmetically perfect. This one doesn't even look bad, and the glass is perfect.
wlewisiii
10-07-2005, 04:20
I got my Sonnar for free... though it does need a visit to Henry's Day Spa as it has a slight aperture issue; it won't open fully up - it binds at about f 4.5/5 ish. Since I use it only in bright daylight, this hasn't been a real problem.
William
rick oleson
10-07-2005, 04:23
OK William, I give up... you win.
: ) =
bmattock
10-07-2005, 04:40
I keep hearing about bargains..... but has anybody beat my $29 135mm hektor?
(cheap is good)
: ) =
I paid $49 for my Hektor, but I do have to say that 135mm LTM bargains abound on eBoy in third-party 135's. I have paid $9 (plus shipping) for a number of them - I may have the biggest collection of non-Leica 135's on the east coast of the US. Not all great lenses, but all fun to play with. I keep mentioning the brand names, but nobody seems interested, so I keep buying them myself. Well, I did until I ran out of money - now they go unbought.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
rotzbremse
10-07-2005, 21:55
I use a Nikkor 135/3.5. It is beautifully made, and is sharp. Equally good is the Canon 135mm/3.5 lens. Both are suitable for close-ups with a rangefinder camera. I find each to be easily handheld.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.