santino
FSU gear head
The title says it all, I mean the Elmar made from 1960 up until 1965 in M mount. There is very little on the internet about it and it seems to be one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) M mount lenses on the used market. Is it just the focal length? The rather old fashioned look? I would like to hear your opinions on that lens but not whether 135mm is useful for a rf etc.
I have the opportunity to get one really cheap an would use it with my M3 for landscapes. I don't like it's look but I expect it to perform nicely since it seems to be a relatively straight forward optical design.
Thanks!
I have the opportunity to get one really cheap an would use it with my M3 for landscapes. I don't like it's look but I expect it to perform nicely since it seems to be a relatively straight forward optical design.
Thanks!
Deardorff38
Mentor
It's a good lens both in sharpness & contrast. I had several, & the 135 2.8 Elmarit w goggles......It's a focal length that doesn't appeal to me. I used the 90 (s) a lot ....but the 135 frame is so small on the M cameras (as is the 150 on the Mamiya 6/7s)....... so it's hard to really tell what your negative will really look like....
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Honestly, I suspect the price is just down to the focal length. 90mm is similar - the LTM 90mm Elmar is probably the best bang for the buck in terms of image quality vs price in the rangefinder world. Most people interested in rangefinders just don't care about longer lenses much, and that keeps the price low for people who actually have a use for them!
I haven't used the M-mount Elmar 135mm, but I picked up a bunch of LTM 135mm lenses on the cheap towards the start of the year; three different Canon ones and a Hektor 135mm. Out of the lot, the Hektor is probably my favourite, with the Canon designs seeming optimised for close-up use but falling apart at long distance and the Hektor just being a bit more consistent across the range. I'd expect the later Elmar to be much the same.
I haven't used the M-mount Elmar 135mm, but I picked up a bunch of LTM 135mm lenses on the cheap towards the start of the year; three different Canon ones and a Hektor 135mm. Out of the lot, the Hektor is probably my favourite, with the Canon designs seeming optimised for close-up use but falling apart at long distance and the Hektor just being a bit more consistent across the range. I'd expect the later Elmar to be much the same.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I can’t speak for the 135 Elmar-M (I have the later Tele-Elmar) but if you do get the lens, I found mounting the SHOOC bright-line finder helps immensely for framing.
lavidaleica.com
Leica 135mm (SHOOC) Finder | La Vida Leica!
Full review of the Leica SHOOC 135mm external/accessory finder.
skahde
V for Victory!
I owned the Elmar-M for a few years. A nice, sharp lens, much better than the Hektor wide open. It has quite a bit less contrast, especially color-contrast, than the Tele-Elmar I bought later and which I found much too sharp for portraits. It has the rendering one would expect from any excellent leica-lens of this era. Externally it is rather long, a bit front-heavy, with the focus-ring close to the far end but handles nicely. I can't remember experiencing any problems with light-sources close to the frame. With slides you would notice the slightly muted colors in comparison with lenses with more modern coatings. Other than that, I cant remember anything one could consider to be a real downside. If you want to use it for portrait, it may be the best choice of the slow, compact 135mm-lenses from Leica. The Tele-Elmar would be my recommendation for landscapes and anything asking for biting sharpness.
The best thing about all three Hektor, Elmar and Tele-Elmar (and Elmarit 2,8/135 btw.) is their low price compared to other lenses made by Leitz/Leica. They are fun to use nevertheless.
The best thing about all three Hektor, Elmar and Tele-Elmar (and Elmarit 2,8/135 btw.) is their low price compared to other lenses made by Leitz/Leica. They are fun to use nevertheless.
Last edited:
santino
FSU gear head
I already have the Minolta 90mm M Rokkor and it is a great lens so I‘ll pass on the 90mm LTM Elmar 🙂
santino
FSU gear head
Thanks for sharing your first hand experience. I think I‘ll give it a try, I like muted colors and the M3s 135 frame lines aren’t the worst 😉
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I had an adapter to mount the head of the 135mm Elmar onto Hasselblad 200/2000 series cameras. The lens can cover 6x6 so in 135 format you get the sweet spot.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
Hmm... An interesting tidbit of info, and it's triggering my camera-hacking instincts. Oddly, the 135 Nikkor for my Bronica S2A is reputed to be a re-purposed Nikon rangefinder lens that also covered 6x6. Same design, maybe? Not to hijack the thread, sorry!
x-ray
Mentor
I’ve owned the Hektor, Elmar and Elmarit 2.8. Hectors werevpretty cheap and the later versions, chrome not black, are ok and stopped down a little are good.
The Elmarit is sharp and make fine B&W images. Honestly I don’t remember shooting any color with it though. I think the best way to describe both the Elmar and Hektor is that they’re old school, not terribly contrasty and reasonably sharp for film. I’d buy either again if I found one really cheap but prefer the 2.8 Elmarit because of the magnifying goggles. The goggles make the 90 gram into a much larger 135 frame. That magnification really helps focusing as well. Image quality is again typical 70’s but images are very pleasing, not too contrasty but nice sharpness. I’ve owned two of these and both were excellent but the goggles can get out of alignment easily but are easy for the user to adjust them.
The Elmarit is sharp and make fine B&W images. Honestly I don’t remember shooting any color with it though. I think the best way to describe both the Elmar and Hektor is that they’re old school, not terribly contrasty and reasonably sharp for film. I’d buy either again if I found one really cheap but prefer the 2.8 Elmarit because of the magnifying goggles. The goggles make the 90 gram into a much larger 135 frame. That magnification really helps focusing as well. Image quality is again typical 70’s but images are very pleasing, not too contrasty but nice sharpness. I’ve owned two of these and both were excellent but the goggles can get out of alignment easily but are easy for the user to adjust them.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
135 is uselesd on M as is. You have to put it via pig on the lipstic, I forgot how this SLR attachment called. Both went not in use shortly after I purchaszd them.
Perhaps, for fun with close ups and portraits if you want to dress in stimpunk shoting style.
Perhaps, for fun with close ups and portraits if you want to dress in stimpunk shoting style.
santino
FSU gear head
Wow, pretty cool. Unfortunately I don’t have a 200/2000 series camera but good to know. RFF is now becoming the biggest source of information on the 135mm f4 Elmar 🙂
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
You're thinking of the Visoflex.
Honestly, I find focusing a 135mm much easier on a Leica III than most other rangefinders (1.5x magnification really helps), and a LOT easier than on an SLR (RF is easier for me to judge focus than a ground glass, even with focusing aids).
You do need to be very sure everything's calibrated properly, of course. But it's definitely far from useless.
x-ray
Mentor
It’s been a while since I owned the Elmar but remember unscrewing the lens head and using it on a bellows and also a focusing mount with adapter to use on my visoflex. I think there was an adapter to use it on a Nikon but of course Leica didn’t make it.
TL7
Member
135mm Elmar is sharp. You will like it a lot.
I got mine for $200- in Mint Cond.
It has Lanthanum glass.
Need I say more....
I got mine for $200- in Mint Cond.
It has Lanthanum glass.
Need I say more....
Deardorff38
Mentor
KF is typically prone to slight exaggeration.....
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
On the Barnack one of my 50 Leitz LTM was more interesting with closeup attachment.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I like the NOOKY & SOOKY attachments a lot. They don't work on a IIIg, though. I'm not interested in getting an APDOO - close-focus filters are never as good as an extension tube.
The 135mm comes in more for landscapes and photographing birds. Tough (by which I mean basically impossible) to get the same shots of those with a 50mm on any camera system.
(This was shot with one of the heavy silver-bodied Canon 135/4 lenses and a VIOOH external finder on a IIIg, for what it's worth.)
rulnacco
Well-known
I briefly owned the lens you're asking about. I only took a few photos with it, I don't think I've printed any of them; the negatives did look quite good, though, in terms of tonality and sharpness under a loupe. Really, I can't add much to what Skahde said above, his summary was excellent and chimes much with my experience of it. The thing that caused me to sell it off was the ergonomics--the length of it, and the front-heaviness. I just didn't get on with it, and I wasn't using it much.
I have within the last year acquired a 135mm Tele-Elmar, and I find its size and balance to at least be acceptable and more tolerable (for my preferences) than the Elmar. I will second the advice to find the external viewfinder, even with the M3 (which I use my Tele-Elmar on). They're usually available rather cheaply for Leica gear, and I personally find it easier to compose with it.
Despite its drawbacks, the Elmar is still a great lens--like practically all Leica lenses. And the price really can't be beat. If you like using the 135 focal length on a Leica (or are considering using a 135mm on a bellows, a great combo), it's really a no-brainer--you'll get well over 90% of the performance of the most modern Leica Apo 135mm at a paltry fraction of the price. I know he gets a lot of mockery (much of it deserved), but if you haven't seen it, Ken Rockwell has a review of the lens on his site which is quite favorable, and has some images that demonstrate the superb quality you can get from it. (Make sure to click on the full-resolution Yosemite photo, it really is pretty stunning what the lens delivers.)
I have within the last year acquired a 135mm Tele-Elmar, and I find its size and balance to at least be acceptable and more tolerable (for my preferences) than the Elmar. I will second the advice to find the external viewfinder, even with the M3 (which I use my Tele-Elmar on). They're usually available rather cheaply for Leica gear, and I personally find it easier to compose with it.
Despite its drawbacks, the Elmar is still a great lens--like practically all Leica lenses. And the price really can't be beat. If you like using the 135 focal length on a Leica (or are considering using a 135mm on a bellows, a great combo), it's really a no-brainer--you'll get well over 90% of the performance of the most modern Leica Apo 135mm at a paltry fraction of the price. I know he gets a lot of mockery (much of it deserved), but if you haven't seen it, Ken Rockwell has a review of the lens on his site which is quite favorable, and has some images that demonstrate the superb quality you can get from it. (Make sure to click on the full-resolution Yosemite photo, it really is pretty stunning what the lens delivers.)
Last edited:
Deardorff38
Mentor
These days, if 135mm is your thing, you can get the newer Tele-Elmar for around $250 on Ebay..
Last edited: