You can't help loving that Apo-Telyt M

jaapv · 06-02-2005

I've owned quite a number of Leica lenses, but this one beats them all by a mile!

(((Warning: 2 Mb file.))) delete that.Changed to JPEG, didn't get through

Jun Yan · 06-02-2005

Jaapv,

where is the 2mb stuff?

jaapv · 06-02-2005

Working on it: molasses

Mackinaw · 06-02-2005

Yes, where's the 2 mb pic?

Also, I'm intrigued by this lens but wonder how well it handles in the field. The 135mm frame lines occupy a pretty small area in my .72 MP viewfinder and I also wonder about focusing accuracy. Can any 135mm-owning folks offer input on this?

Jim Bielecki

jaapv · 06-02-2005

The TIFF didn't get through, I changed it to a more civilized JPEG. The lens handles as beatifully as any other M Leica tele, I use the little lens that screws into the viewfinder, which makes the frame and focussing just fine. It is however the rendering and contrast of this lens that are stunning. For instance this pic looks like it was taken with a polarizer, but it is just "natural". Also, the Web doesn't do it justuce, the detail is far finer than any other Leica lens I ever saw (well, the apo macro 100 R is not bad, but this is clearly better). A very dangerous lens though. It makes one wonder what the new Summilux ASPH and 75 mm are like.... Woops! where are my dark glasses!? I see my bank manager coming!!

Jun Yan · 06-02-2005

WoW, man.
What scanner do u use??

Jun Yan · 06-02-2005

Someone said the sharpest lens of Leica M is 90AA.
Is it this one?What's the "AA" means?

jaapv · 06-02-2005

Minolta Dimarge 5400. Scanned this one at 2700 DPI though. This is the 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt M.

Doug · 06-02-2005

AA = Apochromatic Aspheric

awilder · 06-02-2005

I had the 135/3.4 and returned it after a month because focus is so critical and fast that if focus is off by a smidge, it really shows on the final image. I later purchased the 135/2.8(E55) and find it to be much sharper due to the 1.5X goggles and the long focus throw. Test target images were virtually the same between the two lenses. The only advantage of the 3.4 over the 2.8 is size and weight, not sharpness. OTOH if shooting with an M3, I'd consider the 3.4 first because of the M3's superior 135 frame and 0.91X mag.

jaapv · 06-03-2005

I would disagree, there is a huge difference. The 2.8 is a great lens,I have one in my cupboard waiting to be traded in, but its strength is not resolution or extreme sharpness. It is an ideal low light lens for for instance theater(but also good for general use).That is why Leica provided it with goggles. Its rendering is more "painterly" Even the older 4.0/135 had a higher resolution. Sharpness is not an issue for any Leica lens and as such is no parameter for lens quality. There are such things as resolution,microcontrast,rendering of three-dimensional objects, the way the lens handles DOF etc. In this respect modern Leica designs are far different from older ones. The steeper DOF, far higher microcontrast and resolution makes them a lot "snappier" than older designs. Many would argue that this is at the price of artisitic qualities.As for the focussing, the ocular insert makes for exactly the same effect as the goggles at 1/10th of weight and volume. If that doesn't suffice there is always the .85 viewfinder. Having said that, a 135 on a rangefinder camera is always a bit of an extreme lens.

awilder · 06-03-2005

I hate to disagree with Jaapv, but my personal experiece shows that the difference in imaging between the two lenses really only shows up in critical lab settings. My own resolution tests with USAF resolution test charts revealed the following: @ f/3.4 the Elmarit-M resolved 80/56 lp per mm for the center/corner positions. The Apo-Telyt @ f/3.4 resolved 88/72 lp per mm for the same positions. Similarly,microcontrast and contrast as illustrated by Erwin Puts in the current Leica handbook show the Apo-Telyt to have only a slight edge over the Elmarit-M. Color fringing on my tests was virtually nonexistant on the Elmarit-M and completely nonexistant on the Apo-Telyt. I'm the first to admit the Apo-Telyt is a tad better lens but from the standpoint of consistantly delivering a sharp image under normal or rushed shooting, your odds of focus being spot on are much greater with the Elmarit-M since even a tiny bit of misfocus with the rangefinder will rob you of any technical benefit with the Apo-Telyt. Sure you can use the 1.25X magmifier, but to match total magnification with the goggles and a standard M body you'd need to use the magnifier with a 0.85X viewfinder.

jaapv · 06-05-2005

Don't get me wrong, I happen to think that the 2.8 is a superb lens,
unmatched by any non-Leica lens and if it were not so unwieldy I would
probably have thought twice before getting something else. But in my experience
that is what this 3.4 is: something else. I don't really like posts that quote
authorities to back up personal opininions, but in this case you might
like to see what Erwin Puts has to say:

"Leica M TEST REPORTS BY ERWIN PUTS
Apo-Telyt-M 1:3,4/135mm

The 135mm has a special relevance for Leica rangefinder users. Anyone will remember the famous Kruckenhauser pictures of skiers in the snow from the 1930's. The standard of performance had been set by Zeiss with the Sonnar 1:4,0/135, that around 1965 reached its then theoretical optimum. The Leitz version improved even on this and with the new Apo-Telyt 3,4/135 the issue is settled one and for all. This is the lens to have and use on a M6 HM or M3.

Image quality of the 135mm M-lenses

Compared as usual to the predecessors, the Tele-Elmars 4,0/135. The T-E has an optical layout, consisting of 5 lenses in 3 groups. In comparison the A-T has also 5 lenses but now in four groups. The T-E is optically unchanged since 1965 and has been given several facelifts. The optical performance of the 4/135 is, even from today's very high standards, outstanding.

Tele-Elmar 4/135
At full aperture the whole image field from center to the outermost corners gives a high contrast image with extremely fine detail crisply rendered.
The subject outlines are sharply delineated and give the image a high sharpness impression. Stopped down to 5.6 the contrast improves a little. After f/8,0 the contrast of the very fine object details diminish a bit. Stopping down further softens the edges of fine detail slightly more. This performance holds from infinity to 3 meters. Centering is perfect (I used an older version #2206407), some curvature of field and a trace of astigmatism can be noted on the bench. This lens is at its top already at f/4,0 and with stopping down loses a bit of its impressive performance.

Apo-Telyt 3.4/135
The A-T at full aperture (3,4) the whole image field from center to corners give a high contrast image with extremely fine details very crisply rendered. Stopped done to f/4,0 the A-T improves visibly on the T-E on its ability to render the finest possible details with excellent contrast and clarity. Stopping down this level of performance holds to the smallest aperture (22) with only very small losses in edge contrast.

This APO-Telyt shifts the performance level of M-lenses to a higher platform. It represents current thinking about optical performance as implemented by Leica. At wider apertures and closer distances the unsharpness area sets in abruptly and the shapes of objects rapidly lose its details. For me personally this behavior is excellent, but bokeh aficionados might be less happy.

The important characteristic of the A_T is its superior clarity of exceedingly fine detail that give A-T images a new look. While for some purposes the T-E gives comparable performance, the A_T excels in a transparency of fine color hues and almost lifelike rendition of very small subject details. In direct comparison the rendering of the same fine detail by the T-E is dull, or when going to the edge soft or washed out. Going one level of detail deeper the T-E produces noise where the A-T still shines.

This level of optical performance is very sensitive to manufacturing tolerances. Computer diagrams show the loss of performance when focus is shifted away from its optimum position. The lavish and some would say excessive attention to production tolerances is indeed needed here. My lens worked flawlessly and had no dust or other blemishes

APO-MACRO-Tele-Elmarit 2,8/100.
I also made a sideways comparison to the APO-MACRO-Tele-Elmarit 2,8/100.
Both the A-T and the AMTE are on the same level of performance. In the far edges the AT is even a bit better. But generally we may now note that Leica M users are very well served and now can produce images the envy of the R-users, who had the advantage in the medium telelens field.

The Apo-Telyt is a truly superb lens. It demands users who are willing and able to exploit to the fullest their technique and do not hesitate to improve on their expertise to match the optical qualities of the APO-Telyt.

Compared to the 2.8/135.

At full aperture the center has good contrast and very fine detail is crisply rendered with adequate clarity. In the field the image quality drops visibly and now fine detail is recorded with good contrast. Very fine detail is washed out by softness of edges and low contrast. Stopping down improves somewhat. Generally this lens is miles behind the 3,4/135.

laptoprob · 06-05-2005

Wow. And the humble old 50's Hektor? Where does that fit in? in sharpness and contrast?

Rob

StuartR · 06-06-2005

I don't use the 135 enough on the M to appreciate the lens, but if it is anything like the 100mm APO Macro Elmarit R, that is amazing. Of course, for my purposes the 100mm is more versatile in that it is faster and focuses to 1:2, but it is apples and oranges, as they are for totally different systems, and even different focal lengths.

jaapv · 06-06-2005

To the defense of the much-maligned 135/2.8 >rant<

This thread seems to be anti-135/2.8.If so, there is no foundation for that.
Since its introduction this lens has been hammered by critics that it
was too soft and/or too bulky compared to the 4.0
In fact this disregards what Leica did when it designed it.They gave it
a beautiful long throw on its focusring, superb focussing through goggles,
a very wide aperture for its time,a wonderfully smooth OOF,the best
performance between 2 and 6 metres,well supressed flare and no coma.
So this is not a lens for sailing boats on a bright day or balloons
at a fair or mountains in summer
But unrivalled for a moorhen in a foggy marsh, the hands of a pianoplayer
in a smoky bar or a clown in the spotlight. And designed for Tri-X.
So extreme resolution and microcontrast, super-defined bokeh and vibrant colors
are utterly unnecesary.Those of you that were kind enough to visit
my gallery know that I am more of a landscape and static subject
photographer,no focus problems whatever and love of fine detail,whereas I suspect (unfortunately no gallery-post) awilder is probably more of the action,people and theatre school
So everybody is using the right tool for the job.As it should be.

awilder · 06-06-2005

Thanks for all the research Jaapv, great job on Erwins analysis of the 135s. I personally have owned the TE 135/4, AT 135/3.4 and both versions of the EM 135/2.8. Optically, I would rate the 3.4 as best follwed closely by the 4 and 2.8(E55 version) which are tied for 2nd place and lastly the 1st version 2.8.

jaapv · 06-06-2005

Thanks awilder;please put some stuff in your gallery. I was disappointed to find none, as I was interested in your photography.

awilder · 06-06-2005

I'd love to but have no scanner for all my 'chromes'. If I ever do get one, where can I go to learn how to post on this forum? Next to my enthusiasm for sharing photo info would be sharing photo imaging.

Doug · 06-06-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by awilder

I'd love to but have no scanner for all my 'chromes'. If I ever do get one, where can I go to learn how to post on this forum?

Hi -- This is a very helpful and friendly place, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone supplies detailed instructions for you. But it's not really necessary, and you might actually benefit more by exploring RFF a bit on your own... never know what you might discover and learn! Poke some buttons and see what happens! Posting photos in messages and the galleries is pretty easy to figure out on your own. Enjoy!

awilder · 06-06-2005

This may not be the proper forum, but any suggestion on a good scanner for less than $1000?

StuartR · 06-06-2005

Minolta Scan Dual IV -- it is very good and very cheap. You can get a lot of good scanners for under 1000 bucks, but it helps if you only want to scan 35mm. If you want to scan MF and/or Large Format, prices go way up.

jaapv · 06-06-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by awilder

I'd love to but have no scanner for all my 'chromes'. If I ever do get one, where can I go to learn how to post on this forum? Next to my enthusiasm for sharing photo info would be sharing photo imaging.

Both top of the amateur range Nikon and Canon scanners are great at
about $650,--, or a bit more,with Minolta probably holding the qualityedge.
Having said that, scanners that were great a few years ago are not bad at all now.
It is not really a must to scan to 5400 DpI to make a 20x30 print,
2700 or even 1350 are ample.
So it is well worth it to look on the second-hand market or e-bay.
The fun of scanning is that it returns the control of darkroom
procedures to the photographer.The downside is that it generates a lot
computer-time. Marriages have been known to break up over this!

(not mine fortunately)

Btw,if you want to discuss this further, lets move to the digital darkroom forum.