135mm focal length on a rangefinder ... do you?

[Keith]

How often do you use a 135mm lens on your rangefinder ... do you even own one? I do, a Tele Elmar but I'm thinking of getting rid of it and replacing it with something that won't just lurk in the cupboard collecting dust. Realistically I can't see myself using anything longer than a 90mm on any of my rangefinders but I think a couple of tele primes for my OM's might be useful. What Zuikos would be recommended to fill this gap as I'm quite happy to switch to my OM's for this type of photography when the need arises.

I figure if I sell my Tele Elmar here in the classifieds I may get enough to buy a couple of Zuiko primes between 100 and 200mm. :)

[varjag]

A tele on RF not that often.. although I used the 200 on M4 yesterday :)

[pvdhaar]

Don't own a 135, and even sold the 90 after only a couple of test shots. Not my cup of tea on an RF I'm afraid.

But I do quite like 70mm on a DSLR though (roughly 105mm equiv.) so it's not the focal length per se that's the issue. It's more to do with framing..

[laptoprob]

Not that often, no. I kinda prefer the 200 being a real telephoto. Framing is a bit tricky though.

[pstevenin]

I use it sometimes (the googled version) on the M6TTL (.85+magnifier) with no framing concerns.

I even use it on the M8 as a tele (on tripod mainly as I am doing a serie of the Sacré Coeur) but not only

M8+90+magnifier is a great combo too ('cron for instance).

Framing issue may arise on short focusing distance, but in such cases I use a 50 or a 75.

[Mr_Flibble]

I have a 135mm Hektor, but I have not used it very much yet. I'm usually sticking to the 50mm or if I'm doing portraits 90mm Elmar lenses.

Besides it makes my IIIa look HUGE!
http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/leicaIIIa3.jpg

[oscroft]

I had a 135mm (a J-11) but I really couldn't get handle framing with it and I sold it. The longest I really use is a CV 75mm (with my J-9 85mm mostly sitting on the shelf). For telephoto use an SLR is just so much better.

[Keith]

Rick ... that's some very classy looking vintage Leica gear! :)

I think one of the things with a rangefinder ... well for me it seems this way ... if I take the camera with me for the day I tend to use the lens that I left the house with and I don't really feel like carrying anything else to shoot with on it. The chances of me leaving the house with a 135mm mounted are remote ... it's not a focal length I can imagine spending the day with. The only camera I have that would be comfortable with this length is the M3 which I find ideal with a 90mm so the stretch is not far for the viewfinder magnification to deal with I guess!

[laptoprob]

I used the 135 on the Bessa T and IIf using the rf window as vf too. The 1,5 mag windows are about the circle enclosed by the 135 frame.
The 200mm is about the rectangle fitting inside that circle. And slightly bigger than the rf patch on my M4-2. Used the 200 on M4-2 in the zoo and it works. I will be doing that more often I think. But not only at the zoo.

But, these lenses are quite big. Too big to be handy.

[pphuang]

I've been sorely tempted to pick up a 135 for stage shots. I often use a DSLR, but its LOUD (I get some annoyed looks while I'm snapping away, especially during quiet scenes :( ), so I've thought about using a rangefinder more often. f/4 lenses seem to be not too expensive, but I'm not sure that they are fast enough for my needs. An f/3.4 might do the trick, but I just don't think I would use it enough to justify the expense...

[Doug]

I agree it's a matter of framing, difficult without additional magnification. I don't own a RF 135, rarely use even the 90mm. But with an SLR I have occasionally taken a walk with only a 200mm mounted to stretch the vision a bit... :)

[Dogman]

I have a very old and fungus-filled 13.5 cm Hektor that I haven't used in years. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I used my 90 mm.

[raid]

I frequently use 85mm/90mm/105mm/135mm lenses for portraits. Among this range of focal lengths, i use the 135mm the least often, but I use it.

[steamer]

I use my 135 sonnar now and again and I'm always amazed by the results. Max Dark Avenger had some pretty cool 135 portraits too if I remember correctly. I posted a few weeks ago about using the nikkor 135 with a bessa R2S but nobody replied.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49515

[dlove5]

I actually use a 135 quite a bit. Probably not enough to justify the number of 135's I have. My youngest daughter plays soccer, so they get a fair amount of use there.
A lot of times though 135 doesn't reach far enough for for that.
Tele-elmar 135f4 - recently purchased from colyn. Takes super sharp pictures. The size is a little more conducive to carrying around.

Elmarit 135f2.8 - heavy but I like the goggles for better rangefinder focusing.

Nikkor 135f3.5 - takes really sharp pictures, but I hardly use it. I got it mainly for the external 135 viewfinder. Cheapest way I found to get a decent 135mm viewfinder.

Hector 135f4.5 - takes decent pictures. I have 2 of these, but haven't used them in quite sometime.

[Roger Hicks]

Sold my 135/2.8 when I only used film: big, heavy, seldom used (but delivered a disproportionate number of good shots when it was).

Bought another when I got the M8...

Cheers,

R.

[ferider]

One can do cool stuff with the 135/2.8 that is hardly possible otherwise
when out and about and shooting landscapes:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/48878733-L.jpg

And on an M3 using the Elmarit is almost like using 50mm framelines on an M2.

That said, you NEED 85/2, and 180/2.8 Zuikos, Keith :)
Spectacular for what they cost.

Best,

Roland.

[wlewisiii]

I use my Canon 135/3.5 (black, late version) occasionally. I enjoy using it though it's always a pain to deal with a external finder on my Bessa R. Very nice results from it.

William

[thomasw_]

the 135/4 was a good lens on my m3. problem is that it is just too big for regular use for my shooting style. the idea of lugging rick's massive vintage gear around is a hampering thought for me:)

[gb hill]

I have a Canon Serener 135 (chrome) that I have used, and it's a really good lense. My biggest complaint is that it's like a brick. I wouldn't want to lug it around all day. But I did buy a nice leather case from David Murphey that the lense now resides in, so carrying it now woundn't be so bad I guess. The finder I have has a dial on the back that is a bit tricky to use. I assume that after you get the rf patch lined up and focused you set the dial on the finder to correspond to the distance set on the lense and compose the photograph. I have been off a few times, especially when holding the camera in a horizontal position. The dial btw is in both ft. & meters.

[awilder]

The 135 is a lens I use but less frequently than the 90. It's something I take on vacation if the Leica is my ony body as 135 is the longest lens made for an RF without a Visoflex style attachment for a 200 or 280. The Tele-Elmar is one of the sharpest lenses ever made in that focal length and can easily blown up with little loss of detail equaling the sharpness of all but the latest and very best 180's uncropped.

[steverett]

I just got a Canon 135/3.5 to go on my Canon 7. I've only used it once, to take some pics of fall leaves at the local park, and I liked how I could fill up the frame without having to get super close to my subject. It also allows me to fit a whole tree in the frame without having to tilt up too much (thereby making it a good "tree portrait" lens?)

[cmedin]

Hell, on one of my rangefinders the 135mm is all I have!

(Crown Graphic... :D)

[kevin m]

Nope. Framelines too small, lens too big. :D

[KoNickon]

Yup -- not often, but it's a useful focal length, 50% longer than a 90. I have a J-11 (Kiev mount), black and chrome Canons, chrome Nikkor (S mount) and a Tele-Elmar. A little tricky to focus these with the Hexar RF because of its low magnification finder, but feasible since the Hexar has a very nice bright RF patch.

If you have an M3, there's nothing better for a 135 -- though the switchable magnification bottom loader Canons enable precise focusing too.

[lushd]

Yes - Jupiter 11 mounted on my Bessa R. Don't do it often as it is a bit awkward but I often get pictures I really like:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47771&ppuser=1346

[mike_j]

I use 75mm for portrait work but generally anything long is DSLR territory - I can go up to 800mm there with no problems.

In my world RF is for wide angle use.

[cmogi10]

My 135/4.5 went awol...I think my roomate pawned it.
I'm going to keep looking.

[SolaresLarrave]

To me, it's a good travel lens. I have the goggled version and use it with my M6TTL bodies (both 0.72). Here's some samples.

Wessenstein, Medieval Festival on Pentecost day. A musical group called Krless...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52250&d=1195935729

Again, Krless... a study in percussion.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52251&d=1195935748

I think these ones were done with Ektachrome 100, lens wide open.

[grainhound]

A long lens can produce cool effects, as Roland has already pointed out. Since I can contribute something for a change, here are a couple of samples from the f3.5 Nikkor I got from RayG. I can see using the abstract wash of its out of focus areas for certain kinds of photos (it is a tweaked Sonnar from what I’ve read), and for the cost/sharpness of the Nikkor, I’m happy to have it for that effect. I think it's a skinny looking thing, & have wondered if it weighs a bit less than my chrome Nikkor 85 f2. By itself, it doesn’t weigh me down, but I’m likely to carry it with the 85, & the two are a bit of weight. I apparently mind that less than most people.

I took the photo in the middle with a classic 50mm f2.8 Elmar & included it here for reference. I had to step back a little onto the street for the 135 shot, & I changed the view to use the trees instead of the graffitti for the out of focus area. That 135 shot (the 3rd one) shows that my M3 still has a light leak - it shows up when I change lenses. I'm waiting to hear if it's worth the cost to fix. 1st Nikkor shot at f4, the 2nd at f3.5.

[Otter]

Use my old Steinheil Culminar 135 f4.5 with Nikkor varifocal finder.a lot. Great for street shooting when I want to keep some distance. Captured a few seabirds in flight with it too.

[izziebears]

Use a Jupiter J11 on my Bessa T occassionally. Still trying to get the framing under control - few heads chopped off.

[Rob-F]

Keith, I just sold my 135mm Tele-Elmar, for the same reasons you sold yours. I bought it knowing that it was a very sharp lens. All in all, I took maybe 4 0r 5 shots with it 5 years. It was just too big and awkward, and I never took it out of the house. Since it was such a good lens, I didn't want to sell it, so I kept it for a long time. Last week I put it on eBay and it went off to its new owner. When it's time for a 135, I reach for my R5 and 135 Elmarit. I use my Leicas out to 90mm, even when I'm using the M3.

[Bingley]

I don't use a 135 mm on my rf b/c I've just never warmed to this focal length. I've tried. I have a Rokkor 135 for my Minolta slr, and it's a small, sharp lens, but I've never felt happy or comfortable shooting w/ it. I much prefer a 90 or 100 focal length: these leave just enough room around the subject. Also, the 90 Elmar and the Canon 100/3.5 are tiny lenses (for telephotos) and easy to shoot from an ergonimics perspective.

[David Murphy]

Yes I use one. Usually for distant objects. Helps to have an internal 135mm finder like he Canon Bottom loaders, but you can lope by with internal 90mm, 100mm finders, or an external 135mm finder if carefully aligned.

[peter_n]

I have both a J-11 and a Tele-Elmar and use them occasionally. Both are pretty good lenses:


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/3334/03.jpg
Jupiter-11


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/3334/42909_15.jpg
TE


I also have a Komura 2x converter that I have yet to try. :)

[Kim Coxon]

I used one on the Canon VI-L and if I still had the camera, I would have kept the lens. It worked well with the mag finder. Now I only have the M6, the lens has gone. I would rather use a fast 2.5 on the SLR rather than a slow lens on the RF.

Kim

[ErnestoJL]

Yes, I own three:
Jupiter 11 in Contax Mount
C. Zeiss Sonnar 135/4 in Contax mount
Jupiter 11 in LTM

I would be eager to get an 85 mm, just because the 135 is a bit longer to be comfortable for an RF, but those listed are the only I was able to buy here.

Yes, I use them often.

Ernesto

[gberger]

I had the current Leica 135, and I used it - - on a tripod with a shutter release cable - - for deliberate landscapes and architecture shots. Resolution, contrast were literally awesome when projected with a P2002/Colorplan. I still have some of my slides from those shoots mounted in glass for projection.

Let's face it: The 135 IS NOT a grab-and-shoot lens, such as the 35mm, 50mm, 28mm, and possibly the 90mm. It's a deliberate use lens, with superb resolution, when used with ISO 50 or 100 'chromes. If you are using print film, well, "forgettaboutit!"

At my tender age (84+) and developing moderate macular degeneration, so I "willed" my 135 to a superb photographer in New Zealand, as I could no longer take full advantage of the lens. He can, he does, and he shall - - tripod included!

Please, just don't judge a Leica lens by its utility as a street journalist's prime objective.

I've been using Leitz/Leica 35mm cameras since 1945, so I hope that my assessment might carry a little weight with our respondents


George (The Old Fud)

[Santafecino]

Folks--
For me, 135mm is a good focal length for framing subject closely or for compressing perspective. I was at a national park here in New Mexico and could get no closer than about 30' from some remarkable petroglyphs. I used a Leica CL with a J-11 and a FSU universal finder and got some remakable negatives. I was using a tripod and so did not need to use f/4. Still, the lens performed admirably. I find 135mm a deliberate lens but quite useful. The J-11 is not heavy and takes the same 40.5mm filters as most other Russian lenses.

My only puzzle is what lens shade is best. The plastic Russian rectangular one seems to work okay.
--Lindsay

[Sjixxxy]

I've been trying to figure out what to do as a series to print, and try to get an exhibition somewhere. I think today I finally hatched an idea that I can shoot entirely new material for, and have ready in a few months. As I ponder the look I want for this series, I'm thinking the 135mm on the M3 is going to the tool that I'll use to execute on it.

Some 135mm love, coming my way.

[gudlagoba]

I use the J11 on my Kiev 4 and it works well with the turret finder. No framing problems as long as I remember to set the viewfinder at the 1.5, 3 and infinity marks which as you all know can be a PITA.

[aoresteen]

Like William, I have a black Canon 135mm. I rarely use it but it works well with my M3-MOT. If I know I'm going to be using long glass I bring an OM1 or OM2 with my Soligor 135mm f/2, Soligor 200 f/2.8, and a Vivitar 400 f/5.6.


If light is good I'll take slower teles like the Zuiko 200 f/5 & a 135mm f/2.8

The Canon doesn't take up much room in the bag so I bring it in case my 90 doesn't reach. It's nice to have a long screwdriver in the toolbox so when you need it, just reach in and grab it.

[mr_phillip]

Like William, I have a black Canon 135mm. I rarely use it but it works well with my M3-MOT. If I know I'm going to be using long glass I bring an OM1 or OM2 with my Soligor 135mm f/2, Soligor 200 f/2.8, and a Vivitar 400 f/5.6.


If light is good I'll take slower teles like the Zuiko 200 f/5 & a 135mm f/2.8

The Canon doesn't take up much room in the bag so I bring it in case my 90 doesn't reach. It's nice to have a long screwdriver in the toolbox so when you need it, just reach in and grab it.

I'm so pleased to see a couple of people praising this lens – I just bought one by mistake. I thought I was bidding on a late black 100mm but it was actually the 135mm (the moral of which is never eBay while heavily medicated!)

The only other long lenses I own are the 90mm Elmarit-M (marvelous thing), and the Canon 100mm f2 (which sees occasional use on the Canon P, but damn it's a big lens). Looks like I've got a 135mm now though, whether I wanted it or not ;)

[FPjohn]

Hello:

Shooting with a 135mm is great with an external viewfinder. Hecktors are cheap and undervalued - a bargain.

yours
FPJ

[JNewell]

Used to...don't any more. When I did:

Best: Elmarit (w/ goggles) on M3
Next best: Tele-Elmarit (and before that, a Hektor) on M3 or Elmarit on M2/M4

Didn't like: Tele-Elmarit on M2/M4

[charjohncarter]

I have the beater Elmar 135mm f4.5. It works great on the IIIf but slightly blocks the rangefinder window on the Bessa-R. It produces images that are well above, as Roger Hicks says, the "quality threshold."