I have come across a 135 Elmarit-M in good condition with goggles. As I understand, this lens has the same optical formular as that of the R, which I own and happen to like very much. Is using this lens (the goggled M) convenient and pleasant on an M4? I did not actually try it out, but would like to hear from knowledgeable persons from this forum before I play with the thing. Any input would be most appreciated. Thanks.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), June 21, 2001

Answers

Steven: I have the 135 Elmarit with "goggles" and use it very seldom. It uses the 90 brightline and gives a larger image. It shows only what you are shooting and does not allow you to follow the action into the field as well as other lenses do. The lens is quite heavy for an M lens, about 785 grams for an early one. When I use it I prefer it on the M3 instead of the M6 .72. If the lens has been handled roughly, the eyes may need re-aligning. I have done this, but it is time consuming. If you have a chance to run a roll of film with the lens prior to purchasing, shoot it near and far wide open to check the rangefinder. The eyes can be aligned vertically and horizontally independent of the camera viewfinder. If your M4 body rangefinder is on, the lens is not necessarily correct. E-mail me if you would like some assistance on re-alignment.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), June 22, 2001.

I had both 135/2.8 and 135/4 at the same time. Comparing them side by side I decided that 135/2.8 was too heavy & awkward to use, specially if you are working from a bag. The goggles snag on everything and anything. I have since sold it . The 135/4 by contrast is a very usable lens and produces fab results specially if your range finder is spot on and worth the one stop loss.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), June 22, 2001.

The later version from 1973 and up (serial no. 2 600 000 and up) is the better version and is optically identical to second version of the R lens.

I find it works best on a 0.72 camera as then the magnified viewfinder image is lifesize. You can then open both eyes and see all around the frame.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 22, 2001.

Steven:

I had the most recent version of this lens in mint condition and sold it because it was too heavy and awkward to use with a M6 camera body. The slightly dimmer viewfinder image made focusing just a little bit harder too. I think I needed the M handgrip to hold the camera and lens steady. Optically the most recent version is identical to the R lens. I now have a 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar which is much lighter and easy to use with my M6 or M3 cameras. Best thing is to try it out before you bu

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), June 22, 2001.

Steven: I had the most recent version of this lens in mint condition and sold it because it was too heavy and awkward to use with a M6 camera body. The slightly dimmer viewfinder image made focusing just a little bit harder too. I think I needed the M handgrip to hold the camera and lens steady. Optically the most recent version is identical to the R lens. I now have a 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar which is much lighter and easy to use with my M6 or M3 cameras. Best thing is to try it out before you buy it.....................................................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), June 22, 2001.

Thanks everyone. Yup, the lens looks huge and heavy even without trying it on the M4 body. I suspected that might be a problem, and is confirmed by many of you here. Looks like it defeats the purpose of the M. Might take your advice and look for a 135/4 instead. By the way, any idea if the Nikon screwmount 135/3.5 is a good lens? I just saw one up for sale. Thanks again. Cheers.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), June 22, 2001.

Steven...

I just picked up an Elmarit 135/2.8 w/googles the other day. I haven't used it in the field yet but I am going to Maine next week and I will be bringing it along. At home, I like the feel of it. Yes it is heavier and bulkier than what you'd expect of an M lens, but I think it balances quite well on my M6. I recently switched over to my M6 from Nikon SLRs, so maybe that's the reason it feels fine.

When I get back from Maine I'll email you with my thoughts on the 135/2.8 after putting it to use.

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), June 22, 2001.

The late black Canon 135/3.5 is an excellent lens, and never too expensive. There are a lot of them around.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 25, 2001.