What 135mm for my M?

M

M like Leica M6

Guest
Often I would like to have a longer tele lens than my current Voigtländer 75mm portrait lens and consider a 135mm. What are your recommendations? My budget is somewhat limited so I do not consider a new Leica lens. I don't mind whether it is a Canon, Leica or whatever brand as long as it gives good sharpness and does not have a 4.5 or even worse aperture.
 
Nikkor or Canon LTM - very sharp, well made, and inexpensive. I think Dante Stella has a writeups on both of them.

I have used a Nikkor 135 on an M3. I don't know how easy it will be to focus correctly on an M6's shorter baselength and lower VF magnification.
 
I've an Elmarit mit der goggles, and I like it. On the .72 finders, it's a "both eyes open" shooter, and very easy to compose, especially that it brings up the 90mm frame lines. Pictures are good, too. I'll post an example when I get home.

JD
 
i just sold my canon 135/3.5 ltm.
it was very sharp and almost the same size as the 85/2.

i just rarely used it so i sold it.

joe
 
I have the Canon 135/3.5. It's a pretty good lens. I got it a couple of months ago off the dabay I haven't a shot WHOLE lot with it ( I plan to this summer), but when I have used it, I've liked the results.
 
I use a Russian Jupiter-11 on my M6TTL. Widest aperture is f4 but this is a heck of a lens. About $30-50 on eBay. :)
 
i have the tele-elmar 135 f/4. it is a great lens! even though i don't use it enough, and had a resistance to this focal length, i'm glad to have it in my bag, in fact i feel lucky to have it for when i need it. its not that 135 brings things all that close, but what it does to flatten space is beautiful.
 
Many people find that they want this focal length, but when they get it they realize they either don't need it, or find difficulty shooting with it. The 135 frameline is quite small in the .72 finder...if you really want the focal length, the Canon or Nikon lenses mentioned are small and excellent, but you may want to try a goggled version just for the increase in the frameline size. Otherwise, I am sure the new Leica 135/3.4 has astounding performance, but it is rather expensive. I would go with the Canon -- it is usually around 150 dollars in excellent condition and if you don't like it you can just turn around and sell it for the same. That's what I did...I think this focal length is better served by SLR's.
 
StuartR said:
Many people find that they want this focal length, but when they get it they realize they either don't need it, or find difficulty shooting with it. The 135 frameline is quite small in the .72 finder...if you really want the focal length, the Canon or Nikon lenses mentioned are small and excellent, but you may want to try a goggled version just for the increase in the frameline size.
Click to expand...


True, but if you add the "1.25 Okular"the little screw-in magnifier the viewfinder is fine. Yes- the 3.4 apo is astounding (and btw, a good reason not to shoot SLR :cool: ) I have had it for some weeks now and I love it, but the older 4.0/135 are excellent lenses as well and shouln't be too expensive nowadays, considering the numbers made.
 
Last edited:
Well I borrowed the 135 Tele-Elmar.. Its tack sharp at F4, and at 135 I dont think an apeture much wider is usefull (DOF too small). I love framing with this in the rangefinder. Unlike others, I dont find it difficult, I find it a revelation compared to using an SLR. I can see the whole scene and just pick parts of it. I found a 90mm I borrowed was either too long or too short.. I find the 135 compliments my 35mm nicely and want to purchase it.

I can also buy a 135 Elmarit f/2.8 with goggles... Sure its another stop, but its bigger and getting away from what I like about M.. compact (Does anyone know if this lens is particularly outstanding?).

Daniel.
 
Both lenses are excellent; the 4.0 is more flare-free and exhibits no coma The 2.8 has a flatter plane of focus and slightly higher resolution. The 4.0 has the same perfomance from 1.5 m to infinity, the 2.8 needs to be stopped down to 5.6 for best performance at closer distances.(but 2.8 is quite usable) On the whole the optical performance of the 4.0 is slightly better than the 2.8
 
If you haven't had long lenses on a Leica, go for the 90mm focal length instead: less cumbersome than any of the 135, and the framelines are easier to handle in the M6TTL 0.72.

I have both, a 'cron 90 and the Elmarit 135 mit goggles... I prefer the 'cron. The Elmarit will stay because I can see its usefulness for concerts and other rare ocassions; however, my long lens of choice is the 90mm. They're easier to handle, smaller (at times significantly) and very sharp as well.

Try that before plunging the cash for a 135mm. In fact, look for the CV APO Lanthar or the Leica Elmar 90/4 (relatively inexpensive compared to the Elmarit).

Have fun shopping! :)
 
135mm M f/2.8 is a good consideration for portraits, especially tighter head and shoulders. They are very competitively priced and can be picked in great shape for $400 on fleaBay.
 
I read this thread late last night but didn't comment. I've since given it a great deal of consideration.

In one breath you say you have a "limited budget" without being specific. One man's limited budget could be another's idea of rolling in the dough. In the next breath you speak of f/4.5 as being unacceptable and thus eliminate a much underrated lens from consideration.

If your "limited budget" allows you to comfortably buy a Canon or Nikkor lens then that would be my choice as they are both very good. If they are out of reach then I'd definitely look for a decent Hektor.

Yes, the Hektor has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 which you eliminated from consideration. I'd like you to reconsider and think about how you plan to use the lens.

Most people - there are exceptions, of course - have a problem with anything longer than 50mm at slow shutter speeds so, even if you buy an f/2.8 135mm lens, can you make effective use of it in low light? If you can't then it's reasonable to believe that most of your shots will be in normal light where f/4.5 will be more than acceptable.

I'm just providing some food for thought here and pointing out an old lens that is too often overlooked. Whatever you decide, I hope you get a really good example and are pleased with it.

Walker

M like Leica M6 said:
Often I would like to have a longer tele lens than my current Voigtländer 75mm portrait lens and consider a 135mm. What are your recommendations? My budget is somewhat limited so I do not consider a new Leica lens. I don't mind whether it is a Canon, Leica or whatever brand as long as it gives good sharpness and does not have a 4.5 or even worse aperture.
Click to expand...
 
I owned both the 135/4 and 135/2.8. I liked the results from the 135/4 better. At least for my pair, the 135/4 had both better contrast and better definition.

However, the 135/2.8 was a lot easier to focus precisely.

If I were shooting on an M3, I'd use the 135/4. If I were using a body with a .72 or less finder, I'd either use the 135/2.8 or look into (literally :) ) one of the 1.25x magnifiers. I've never used one of those, so I don't know whether they are handy or a pain in the neck in real life use.

Bottom line, though, is that I think this focal length and above work better in an SLR, and I have sold both my 135 M lenses.
 
If you are sure you want something significantly longer than 75mm, I strongly recommend the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit. I'm very happy with mine. The goggles make the focusing accurate and (of course) magnify the viewfinder so you see a reasonable size image. The lens is very sharp, and f/2.8 is after all a whole stop faster than f/4; speed is important in a lot of telephoto shooting. If I were using a lens without goggles, like the new 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt, I would probably want an auxiliary finder rather than using the tiny built-in 135mm frameline. In the US you can buy 135mm Elmarits in good condition for $400 or so.

Note: I am not a big telephoto fan or user. (Maybe that's why I like rangefinders!) I occasionally like a lens as long as this so I can pick out details in a big mountain landscape, or some situation like that.
 
I have a black Canon 135 f/3.5. Very good lens for the price. I use it maybe 5% of the time so I coulding see paing big bucks for Leica glass. Paid $125 plus shipping and it had an M adapter with it.
 
It is hard to go wrong with a Canon or Nikon 135mm F3.5. Either should run ~$100 or so. I have no problem with them on the Canon 7 with its 0.8x finder. With that said, the Leica Hektor is a very pleasing lens and F4.5 is not far off from F3.5.
 
aoresteen said:
I have a black Canon 135 f/3.5. Very good lens for the price. I use it maybe 5% of the time so I coulding see paing big bucks for Leica glass. Paid $125 plus shipping and it had an M adapter with it.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, how's it working for you? That's the one I sold you right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top