Sharpest 135mm

[chris00nj]

I was wondering what the sharpest 135mm is?

As for LSM lenses, I have the Hektor and found its performance to be okay, but not as good as I'd hope. I was considering the Canon 135 or the Nikkor 135 as I have read they are better.

How do they compare to the Leica M mount lenses, such as the 135 tele-elmar? Is the tele-elmar any better than the 135/2.8 Elmarit? Why do you need goggles with the 135/2.8 Elmarit?

[ZeissFan]

One of the sharpest lenses that I've encountered in that focal length is the Carl Zeiss (Jena) f/4.0 135mm Sonnar -- whether it be the original black and nickle version, the prewar chrome and steel or the postwar coated version as well as the East German Jena lens.

I would expect that the Nikon RF version also would perform well (being based on the Zeiss lens).

[peterm1]

The Canon 135s (either Chrome or Black and Chrome) are good value and are better performers than the Hektor f4.5. The chrome one is damn heavy though. But if it comes to that the 135mm Elmar f4 (later - bayonet mount) is much better than the Hektor also. The tele elmar is a very very good performer and these days is not all that pricey.

[Al Kaplan]

The "eyes" on the Elmarit magnify the image for greater focusing accuracy. They make use of the 90mm frame lines in the camera so you get a bigger visual image through the finder as well.

The 135 frame in the M4 and newer models is tiny, and the M2 lacks the 135 frame altogether. The Elmarit even allows you to use a 135mm lens on the M2. On the down side it makes for a big heavy bulky lens, and it's hard to store in your bag. Supposedly the f/4 Tele-Elmar is the best performer of any, but the Elmarit is certainly a close second. The 135 Canon is also an excellent lens.

Most of the longer Leitz/Leica lenses have removeable heads which can be used on short barreled mounts for use on the Visoflex, or on an SLR with an adapter.

[BillBlackwell]

I was wondering what the sharpest 135mm is? ...

Without question the sharpest 135 is the f/3.4 Apo Telyt M.

[normclarke]

Hi,
According to E.P. the Elmar at f4 = the Hektar at f11 for what that is worth. All the subsequent Leica lenses have improved on this performance. Originally the object was to improve on the Sonnar but it was not met until the Tele Elmar.

Cheers,

normclarke.

[Harry Lime]

1) Leica 135mm f3.4 APO-TELYT-M
2) Leica Tele-Elmar 4/135
3) Zeiss 4/135

[Brian Sweeney]

I've got the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 (four of them, S-Mount, LTM, and 'C'ontax) and the late-model Black Canon 135/3.5. The Canon is slightly better wide-open. That is saying a lot, because the Nikkor is very good.

Another 135 that is quite good is the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar. It is a Sonnar formula lens. Worth watching for on Ebay. Mine was under $20, but required some cleaning. I'll have to upload some shots with it, I used them for "World Rangefinder Day".

All-in-all, it is hard to find a bad 135. You can pick up really good ones for under $100.

[chris00nj]

I've got the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 (four of them, S-Mount, LTM, and 'C'ontax) and the late-model Black Canon 135/3.5. The Canon is slightly better wide-open. That is saying a lot, because the Nikkor is very good.

Another 135 that is quite good is the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar. It is a Sonnar formula lens. Worth watching for on Ebay. Mine was under $20, but required some cleaning. I'll have to upload some shots with it, I used them for "World Rangefinder Day".

All-in-all, it is hard to find a bad 135. You can pick up really good ones for under $100.

Of the Canon or the Nikkor, which is better stopped down?

Does anyone have experience to compare either Canon/Nikkor and the Tele-Elmar. Is the performance of the Tele-Elmar substantially or only marginally better?

[awilder]

The sharpest for the money is the 135/4 Tele-Elmar but you'll get more keepers with the 2nd version of the 135/2.8 Elmarit because the goggles minimize focusing error unless you have a magnifier for the finder or are using an M3 with the 135/4 . Both are reasonably priced. As mentioned earlier, the 135/3.4 is the champ but only if money is no object as they sell for around $1700-1800, hardly worth the investment for that focal length in my opinion.

[Al Kaplan]

I've never tried the Nikkor. I had a later model black Canon for years, and I was happy with it. I finally sold it in favor of the Tele-Elmar for reasons that had nothing to do with image quality. It took the same 39mm filters as my 35 and 50mm Summicrons and 90mm Elmarit. That was in the pre-photoshop era when shooting color for publication meant shooting slides, and getting correct color meant doing it when you shot the pictures. Buying another set of color correction and color compensating filters in another size was a MAJOR investment. A lesser consideration was that the lens head of the Tele-Elmar, as well as my 90 Elmarit, fit the same short focusing mount as my 65mm Elmar and I could use them all on my Visoflex II and Leicaflex SL.

I doubt that I could go back through my old B&W negatives or color slides and tell you with any surety "This is a Tele-Elmar shot and that one is a Canon shot."

Now that we're past the shooting slides for color times I sold the Tele-Elmar when I got a deal on a 135/2.8 with goggles which I mostly use on my M3 body. With today's finer grain films I can crop the image to the field of view of the 180mm. The 135/2.8 might be heavier than the 135/4 but it's a lot lighter than carrying a 180/2.8 on a Leicaflex for the occasional shot so I sold them also.

[Brian Sweeney]

At F5.6 it's impossible to tell the difference between the Canon and the Nikkor. I have not done a direct comparison of the Tele-Colinar with them.

[ferider]

Of the Canon or the Nikkor, which is better stopped down?

Does anyone have experience to compare either Canon/Nikkor and the Tele-Elmar. Is the performance of the Tele-Elmar substantially or only marginally better?

If those three lenses are different (at f4) then really only very marginally so - I have used all three and cann't distinguish them - maybe the Tele Elmar has slightly more contrast. I would make the purchase decision based on handling, filter sizes, hood price and speed (3.5 is a 3rd stop faster than f4 - doesn't really matter for speed but for portrait qualities).

Regarding the handling: Nikkor has 43mm filters, aperture ring turns with focus. For the lighter black version, there is a 43mm push-on hood. Canon has 48mm filters, comes with T-50 or T-50-2 hood. The Tele Elmar is the smallest of the bunch, has 39mm threads, and usualy is used with reversible 12575 hood.

Cheers,

Roland.

[Brian Sweeney]

Here is one with the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 on the Nikon SP, very late model. Close-up and Wide-Open at F3.5.

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=342

This example looks sharper than my early LTM 13.5cm F3.5, but it is close.

Another, also wide-open but colors are more muted,

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=343

[charjohncarter]

I know it is a joy to make fun of the 135mm Hektor f 4.5 (I do it myself), but for all practical purposes it is fine. After all, it is only 35mm, this one is/was wide open:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2444417356_c425baebdb.jpg?v=0

[Brian Sweeney]

I have a late model Hektar in M-Mount, had it professionally CLA'd. It's slow, lower contrast, but gives a really nice image. The rendering from it gives the illusion of a 3-D picture..

As far as making fun of it- I bought a second one in LTM, $50 Leica Lens. No Joke.

[charjohncarter]

Brian, you have always been an advocate of 'personality' when it comes to lenses, and..............like the 'Stones' sang: "There is something about her I don't really know, she makes me cry and I don't know the reason why (sic)." Yes, I like my 135mm Hektor (LTM) f4.5, that low contrast and different color rendition just do something for me.

[chris00nj]

I wanted the sharpest 135 so I could enlarge the center third of a negative into an acceptable 4x6.

This is for when I may need some telephoto capabilities on a trip but don't want to bring an SLR with a long telephoto as well. I tried to use the Hektor in a similar role last year, but I didn't think the results were acceptable.

All else being equal, I prefer a lighter small lens in LTM. I don't care about the extra speed, because most of the photos would be in daylight. Does these criteria and preferences mean I should focus on the Nikkor?

[charjohncarter]

Get a bigger format folder, don't fuss with 35mm. This is an original from a cheap 6x6 folder and a big crop (besides if you intend to crop why would you discrimate against a 135mm Hektor the center is the sweet spot).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3363189389_a2b2fa249e.jpg?v=1237475294

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/3461468728_a7f45eafa6.jpg?v=0

[ZeissFan]

From the postwar West German f/4 135mm Sonnar. This was shot indoors wide open (f/4.0) at 1/10 of a second on Ektachrome 100. I leaned against a post to steady the camera (Contax IIa with turret finder). I cropped to a square.

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/cameras/baboon.jpg

This lens lived on with the Contarex and was the basis for the f/2.8 Olympia Sonnar, another very fine lens.

[Rico]

Besides sharpness, I selected the Tele-Elmar for its compatibility with my 90mm lenses: the caps, IUFOO hoods, filters. The TE and Elmarit 90 v1 share OTZFO for Visoflex focussing. While not strictly APO, I find the TE rendering to be pleasant and well-behaved. As for sharpness, judge for yourself:

http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/rico9.jpg


http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/rico9b.jpg

Image was shot on a Canon 1Ds DSLR with Viso adapter. The 1x-scale crop looks fairly detailed. :) Both images are lightly sharpened.

[Harry Lime]

All else being equal, I prefer a lighter small lens in LTM. I don't care about the extra speed, because most of the photos would be in daylight. Does these criteria and preferences mean I should focus on the Nikkor?

The Tele-Elmar 4/135 is actually quite compact, especially the early version (same optical formula), which is tapered. As a bonus the optical head can be removed and used on a Visoflex.

This is an extremely sharp lens. The new APO version is better, but not by much.

[Roger Hicks]

The Apo-Telyt-M is the one, but the 135/2.8 is also excellent and the FSU 135/4 is astonishing good and costs next to nothing. I use a late 135/2.8 (one of the last made).

By f/5.6 (or maybe f/8) there's no difference worth worrying about between the three, even on a tripod. Without a tripod, steadiness matters more than theoretical sharpness.

Tashi delek,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Chrome Nikkor 13.5cm f3.5 is a heavy lens. If you go in that direction, you will want the later model chrome/black, I think the serial number >267xxx. The Black Canon 135/3.5 is much lighter than the earlier lens.

At F5.6 and F8, all of these lenses are sharp and difficult to distinguish. But you are after the center 1/3rd of the image, basically making them act as a 400mm lens. As Roger stated, you should be using a tripod and faster shutter speed. Instead of the "shutter speed to match the focal length" rule, you need to triple it at least. That means 1/500th is the slowest speed that you should consider.

I have a Komura 200/4.5 in LTM that is small and light, but bought it for a curiousity. I would be using a Nikon F2 with 300/4.5 for these types of pictures.

[gavinlg]

Sorry to be such a prick and bring up SLR lenses but the canon 135mm f2L and the new zeiss ZA 135mm f1.8 have to be the 2 sharpest 135mm lenses IMO.

[ferider]

Here is a typical Tele Elmar shot from me:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/399961650_kjYnM-XL-1.jpg

And cropped:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/517637803_7nRHc-L.jpg

The lens outperforms the scanner (5000 ED).

Cheers,

Roland.

[Harry Lime]

Sorry to be such a prick and bring up SLR lenses but the canon 135mm f2L and the new zeiss ZA 135mm f1.8 have to be the 2 sharpest 135mm lenses IMO.

Why? Because they are the newest? A general rule of thumb in optical design is that a slower aperture lens will generally outperform a highspeed design. There is a lot, lot more energy traveling through a highspeed lens, which is far more difficult to control.

[venchka]

Why? Because he's correct. And they are faster. Huge too. The photos I've seen from the Canon wide open will cut you. Stopped down to 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 and it's no contest. The lens is huge. That's the problem.

[Al Kaplan]

The main consideration for me with a 135 on an M is that I won't need to carry an SLR body with a 180/2.8. I rarely use it as a 135. I crop and use it as a 180. I pretty much have the frame lines engraved in my brain. I really think that a goggled 180/4 would find a ready market.

[chris00nj]

The main consideration for me with a 135 on an M is that I won't need to carry an SLR body with a 180/2.8. I rarely use it as a 135. I crop and use it as a 180. I pretty much have the frame lines engraved in my brain. I really think that a goggled 180/4 would find a ready market.


That was my intention. I plan to crop the center, so I need it to be sharp.

After Brian noted the Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar, I decided to see what other lenses exist as well. There were a LOT of companies that made 135mm lenses for the LSM.

The following is a list of what I've seen around, but I'm not sure if any are better than the Nikkor or Canon:


Chiyoda Kogaku Tele-Rokkor f/4
Tanaka Kogaku Tele-Tanar f/3.5
Telesar f/3.5
Jupiter 11 f/4
Tokyo Kogaku Topcor f/3.5
Komura f/3.5
Sun Telephoto f/3.8
Schacht Travenar f/3.5
Steinheil Culminar f/3.5I appreciate everyone's answers and pictures thus far! :D

[ferider]

There is also a Komura 2.8.

Roland.

[Brian Sweeney]

> Tanaka Kogaku Tele-Tanar f/3.5

Had one. Was "decent". Not as good as the Nikkor or Canon.

> Jupiter 11 f/4
Waiting on results to come back. FSU lenses vary from sample-to-sample, but mine looked VERY SHARP through a loupe.

> Komura f/3.5
Aperture blades "self-destructed" on mine.

> Schacht Travenar f/3.5
"decent" performer, not as good as Canon or Nikkor. BUT: I need to retest mine, took it apart and cleaned all the surfaces. Really Pretty!

[Al Kaplan]

I'm not going to bore everybody with my math but a 180/2.8 with goggles should work at least as well as the 85/1.5 optics of yore, and they sported no goggles. How about it, Voigtlander?

[ferider]

I'm not going to bore everybody with my math but a 180/2.8 with goggles should work at least as well as the 85/1.5 optics of yore, and they sported no goggles. How about it, Voigtlander?

ZI/ZM ... a new Olympia Sonnar. Go for it, Zeiss !

[Sonnar2]

sharpest 135: Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 (Rollei QBM), followed by the Tele-Tessar 135/4 (same mount). Close: Canon 135/2.5 (MB2-RF-lens). Quite good: Canon 135/3.5 (RF)

[GlennB]

Question for those more knowledgeable than me. How do you tell a 2nd gen 135 2.8 from the 1st gen? I have one that says made in Canada, but thought all the 2.8 135mm were made in Canada.
Glenn

Edit: nevermind, I found the answer on Stephen's site.

[Harry Lime]

Why? Because he's correct. And they are faster. Huge too. The photos I've seen from the Canon wide open will cut you. Stopped down to 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 and it's no contest. The lens is huge. That's the problem.

I wouldn't bet money on that. The Canon is good, but I highly doubt that is built to the same mechanical tolerances, as a lens from Leica. Mechanical construction is half the game in making a high performance lens. And again, it would take a minor miracle for Canon to build a f2 lens that outperforms or matches one of the sharpest lenses Leica has ever made for the M line up. Physics are not on Canon's side.