135mm for M3
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
thawkins
thawkins
 
thawkins's Avatar
 
thawkins is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 67
Posts: 346
135mm for M3

Do any of my fellow RF forum members use 135 mm lens on a Leica M system camera? If so, what are the pros and cons of this focal length on an RF camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #2
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9 N, ~14.4 E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by thawkins View Post
Do any of my fellow RF forum members use 135 mm lens on a Leica M system camera? If so, what are the pros and cons of this focal length on an RF camera?
I do it, admittedly rarely.

When you're in the mountains, wandering with as few luggage as possible; once in a while you want to photograph a chamois e.g., then it's not bad to have a 135 in your rucksack

edit: should read: ON YOUR CAMERA, of course
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #3
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,192
No disadvantages to 135mm besides the fact that the viewfinder frame is small, and you need to hold the camera very steady, as the longer focal length magnifies motion.

Having tried several of the 135mm lenses from the Elmar f/4 of the 1960s to the Apo-Telyt, I would say that the easiest to shoot is the f/2.8 ELmarit. This is a big (for rangefinder) lens, made bigger by the magnification goggles.

However, the magic is in those goggles. They magnify the viewfinder, so that you now use the 90mm lines for framing (easier with the bigger frames), AND in so doing also increase the focusing accuracy.

There are two other advantages to this lens:
At f/2.8, it has the fastest speed for a 135mm rangefinder lens. This makes the lens a creamy bokeh machine.

Also, since most people are put off by the lens' bulk, the lens is available at relatively low cost, for a Leica lens. If you can get past the initial impression of its outward appearance, you will be richly rewarded.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #4
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
No disadvantages to 135mm besides the fact that the viewfinder frame is small, and you need to hold the camera very steady, as the longer focal length magnifies motion.

Having tried several of the 135mm lenses from the Elmar f/4 of the 1960s to the Apo-Telyt, I would say that the easiest to shoot is the f/2.8 ELmarit. This is a big (for rangefinder) lens, made bigger by the magnification goggles.

However, the magic is in those goggles. They magnify the viewfinder, so that you now use the 90mm lines for framing (easier with the bigger frames), AND in so doing also increase the focusing accuracy.

There are two other advantages to this lens:
At f/2.8, it has the fastest speed for a 135mm rangefinder lens. This makes the lens a creamy bokeh machine.

Also, since most people are put off by the lens' bulk, the lens is available at relatively low cost, for a Leica lens. If you can get past the initial impression of its outward appearance, you will be richly rewarded.
Dear Robert,

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #5
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 533
I currently have an Hektor 135 on my bag. No issues and love the lens. mostly use it aroung F/8 so dont really notice soft corners, vignetting or falloff.

Also have the Elmarit 135, but, strange enough, havent use it yet after having it for 1 year. Dont really use that focus length that much and when I need tele, normally grab the Elmarit 90 or the Hektor.

Regards.

Marcelo

Test shoot



I think is was probably done at f/8

Regards

Marcelo

Last edited by mpaniagua : 1 Week Ago at 06:59. Reason: Confussed by your double post :)
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #6
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 881
What Robert and Roger said. The 135 2.8 is a very special lens. Although I have other options in that focal length, I use the 2.8 every week. It's bulky, slow to focus, and heavy. But the photos are worth it. There are several lenses I wouldn't be without and this one leads the pack.
  Reply With Quote

135 Elmar
Old 1 Week Ago   #7
Dektol Dan
Registered User
 
Dektol Dan is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 886
135 Elmar

I have the 90 Elmar and Elmarit, but the best bang for the buck,
and I think maybe the best, is the 135 for portraits.

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #8
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 533
What? no love for the Hektor?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #9
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9 N, ~14.4 E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
What? no love for the Hektor?
I use a really worn Hektor
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #10
thawkins
thawkins
 
thawkins's Avatar
 
thawkins is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 67
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
I currently have an Hektor 135 on my bag. No issues and love the lens. mostly use it aroung F/8 so dont really notice soft corners, vignetting or falloff.

Also have the Elmarit 135, but, strange enough, havent use it yet after having it for 1 year. Dont really use that focus length that much and when I need tele, normally grab the Elmarit 90 or the Hektor.

Regards.

Marcelo

Test shoot



I think is was probably done at f/8

Regards

Marcelo
Does the Hektor have coated glass?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #11
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
I use a really worn Hektor
All Hektors I've seen (mine included) are well worn


Regards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #12
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by thawkins View Post
Does the Hektor have coated glass?
I think mine has. There is a violet hue on the lens so maybe it is.

Not really sure if it was originally coated or later done.


Regards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #13
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,363
I use a 135 Elmarit on my M3 and more recently on my A7s.

Its just the right focal length for the majority of my equestrian shots .
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #14
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,363
Why are there two threads on this ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #15
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 533
I suppose OP duplicated the post?

Confussed me a bit when I posted.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #16
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 103
I too use a 135 mm Tele-Elmar-M, though rarely. My M3 has frame lines for it, so I simply put it on and I've got a tiny rectangle for framing in the middle of the viewfinder.

Pros: since the Tele-Elmar-M is the "newest" lens design of the lenses that my wife's grandfather bought with the camera. This lens is tack sharp with aperture openings around f4-5.6. The focusing is also easy, since the rangefinder patch is still the same size as with any other lens, and the focus indexing is right on. Also, it does pretty well for close-ups, focusing to 1 meter, which looks pretty big and close up in the photos afterward.

(This lens is the "newest" lens design of the old lenses that I received, because it was bought after the rest of the kit was put together. Joe bought the M3 and it original telescoping Summicron 50 mm lens new in 1955, then bought a 35 mm Summaron with goggles in 1956 and a used 90 mm Elmar LTM that year too. In 1967, just before a European vacation, he bought the Tele-Elmar-M in black, instead of chrome like the camera and all the other accessories. He also bought a new Leica-Meter MR at the same time, even though he had a perfectly good Leica-Meter MC. I digress... the other lenses were designed in the same time frame as he original M3, except for the 90 mm Elmar that was made in 1952, but the Tele-Elmar-M was introduced in 1965 and benefited from computerized design newly available to Leica in the mid-Sixties, and its greater detail and contrast show it.)

Cons: not many, except that despite the frame line, it's still tricky to imagine the final composition graphically because our eyes see everything outside the frame line, so it takes some imagination and mental discipline to compose only what is inside the frame line (for me) and now what's around it.

Try a 135 mm lens out and see for yourself if you like it or not.

Scott
__________________
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonette QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe

Last edited by skucera : 1 Week Ago at 19:45. Reason: grammar
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #17
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 4,347
I've had since the 1980s and almost sold on consignment a mint Tele Elmar f4. This has come into its own on the M9, but especially with the SHOOC external finder. Focus in camera, frame and shoot with the finder: it's wonderful. Much easier to 'see' 135 focal length shots this way. I tried going out with that lens alone for a day. It wasn't terrible. Good to have in the bag for some projects. Stays at home mostly. You read rubbish about it not focussing accurately on an M9: this is wide open at f4—

L1002052.jpg by Richard, on Flickr
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #18
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,192
Richard G.:
I presume that the focus was on the whiskers and not the eyes?
I mention that because the whiskers are sharp, whereas the eyes are a bit out of focus.

Scott - your wife's grandfather Joe had exquisite taste. MR meter is CdS, and much more sensitive than the selenium cell of the MC meter. Most MC meters these days don't even work. I have several MR-4 meters which all work (after servicing ).

The Tele-Elmar f/4 and the Elmarit f/2.8 have very similar lens diagrams and were designed at about the same time. I had a TE for some time. It is a very fine, sharp lens. But, after the Elmarit arrived, it was just so much easier to compose with the goggles.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #19
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Registered User
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 38
I think you will find no better bang for the buck than the late black Canon 135mm f/3.5. Great lens, smallish.

The Leica 135mm with eyes is nice, but it is really big and not worth it IMO. On the M3 you really don't need the eyes.
__________________


It is not the camera in your hand dingleberry; it is the brain in your head.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #20
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 492
The Elmar f4 from 1960 w/Lanthanum glass is a nice one...and because its not a tele design..real good in close up as well...I paid $200- for mine.

  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #21
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 59
Posts: 144
Mr. Fizzlesticks: Wonder if this is the same (full description) Canon lens? See:
"Canon 135mm f/3.5 LEICA LTM M39 Screwmount"
__________________
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

Leica M4-2 (B&W) and Sony A7RII (Color) with (mostly) Zeiss Glass
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.