rulnacco
Well-known
Yep, that's a sweet lens--I really like mine. But at the same time, it doesn't have the cool & funky factor of the original Elmar--or the built-in tripod mount, quite handy if you need it. The Tele-Elmar is a perfectly functional and extremely capable but somewhat drab-looking piece of kit, while the Elmar is this baroque precision instrument in glorious chromed brass and vulcanite. The Tele-Elmar is a 1976 Chevy Impala, the Elmar is a 1964 Mercury Park Lane in terms of looks.
I kind of hated to sell my original Elmar, even though I wasn't using it much. It was not only a nice lens, it had a bit of historical cachet, too: its prior owner was Douglas Webb, a veteran of the World War 2 Dambusters raid, who went on to become a photographer of some note--and considerable notoriety. Along with his life partner and muse, Pamela Green, who was even more notorious (and somewhat historical herself) for a particular scene in the 1960 film Peeping Tom. I hoped that maybe he had perhaps used the lens to take some risqué photos of Pamela on occasion. (You can look all that up if you're so inclined--it's an interesting story.)
That's part of the fun of Leica gear--it has a life independent of its current owner. I frequently wonder who used to own my various cameras (I have an M3 and M6) and lenses--all purchased second-hand--and what kind of photos they had taken before I met them. And I'm pretty sure my gear will go on living and shooting long after I'm dead and dust.
santino
FSU gear head
Today‘s heavy snow fall prevented me from driving in the mountain region to buy that Elmar. Let’s see if it is going to wait for me another few days 😁
I don‘t really need it but I want it.
I don‘t really need it but I want it.
hendriphile
Well-known
I have used the 135 Elmar with my M3, and I can affirm what Skahde says in his comments above verbatim. Focusing was very precise. When carried in the field, it wasn't discreet (vs. the thin 90 tele-elmarit which could fit in the ever-ready case with the cover closed), but optical performance was excellent (it was cutting edge when it was introduced), and I found that framing and focusing were not a problem with the M3's viewfinder. if it's in good shape I'd say go for it... it won't break the bank!
skahde
V for Victory!
I would like to add that I used the Elmar as well as the Tele-Elmar on a M6 at the time and I found the small framelines to be more usable than not. With landscapes or anything a bit distant all is fine. But I never trusted the accuracy of the RF for portraits without remembering a single bad shot for that reason. Therefore, I also tried the head of the Tele-Elmar on a Visoflex III and it fits the OTZFO without additional extension but the combo felt awkward in comparison to a real SLR and I stopped using it in part because of the unflattering contrast as well as setup and handling.
Incidently I found another Tele-Elmar in the mail just yesterday as there was an offer I could not resist. It is one of the few lenses which went down in price after I sold my last setup about 17 years ago. If I remember the rumors correctly it was said to be practically APO. All I can say, it is sharp and contrasty with resolving-power to boot. If this is what you need, you will be hard pressed to find a better option at that price-point.
Incidently I found another Tele-Elmar in the mail just yesterday as there was an offer I could not resist. It is one of the few lenses which went down in price after I sold my last setup about 17 years ago. If I remember the rumors correctly it was said to be practically APO. All I can say, it is sharp and contrasty with resolving-power to boot. If this is what you need, you will be hard pressed to find a better option at that price-point.
Borge H
Established
I have also the old version of 4/135 Elmar with M-mount. They are inexpensive to buy, but not great lenses.
I would advice to look at Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 instead. It is a more modern lens with M-mount and much better optics. It is small and easy to bring with you in the pocket! It has higher contrast than the old Elmar 4/135 and you can also use them at 2.8 which gives you the option to have a stop shorter speed!
You can get the Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 at auctions at low cost! The old Elmar is still an interesting lens in som applocations like portraits, but a more useful lens is the modern Tele-Elmarit.
I would advice to look at Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 instead. It is a more modern lens with M-mount and much better optics. It is small and easy to bring with you in the pocket! It has higher contrast than the old Elmar 4/135 and you can also use them at 2.8 which gives you the option to have a stop shorter speed!
You can get the Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 at auctions at low cost! The old Elmar is still an interesting lens in som applocations like portraits, but a more useful lens is the modern Tele-Elmarit.
santino
FSU gear head
Thanks but I‘m not looking for a 90mm. I‘m perfectly happy with the 90mm M Rokkor I currently own.
The 135mm Tele-Elmar runs at about 250 Euros where I live and the 135mm Elmar is less than half the price of the Tele, so I’m leaning towards the Elmar since I probably won’t use it that often.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I’ve got one. I don’t use 135mm much, certainly on the rf, but I actually like it. Not expensive and you can make nice pictures with it. This from a long gone M9 I think.
santino
FSU gear head
Your lens renders beautifully, just look at the hair and out of focus areas!