Are there many other M users that use this lens? I never hear much about it on the forum, as only the 75 and 90mm lenses are mostly discussed as far as M tele's go. I just got back some portraits with this lens and am again amazed at the quality of the images. Great Bokeh as well. I use mine with a recently cleaned M3 and have not had a problem focusing and framing. My lens is an older 1966 vintage. I like the look of compression. Anyone notice that a 135mm lens on a rangefinder seems much more of a telephoto when using it than the same focal length on an SLR? Here is a shot taken with it. As usual, my flatbed scan is completely hopeless at capturing the image quality the Leica lens put on the print.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=289024&size=lg

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 14, 2001

Answers

I own a 135/4.5 Hektor, and I donīt use it much now, but in my M3 makes a great combo. It is a good lens, my intensions are to change it for a 135/4, but Iīm more interested now in my Leica wide angles.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 14, 2001.

Great shot, Andrew!

Funny, A Hector 135 came with my M3 kit and I have never once used it. Might be time...

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), July 14, 2001.

I'm a big 135 fan. Currently I've got a screw-mount Hektor (had it since I was a teenager)an f/4 Tele-Elmar from around 1974 and an f/3.4 APO-Telyt. I used to have an f/4 Elmar (nice because it has a built-in tripod bush, like the Hektor)and for a short while the E46 version of the T-E. All of these lenses are great, among the best lenses in the Leica stable. I have regrets that lens-lust overcame me and I splurged on the APO-Telyt as I've yet to see where it bests the T-E. The E-39 T-E also has a removable head which can be used (focuses to infinity) on a Visoflex with either a focusing mount or bellows, and with the additional 14167, on an R body. Truth be told when weight and space are a primary concern (like on European airlines with a 6 kilo carryon limit) the 135 comes along and the 90/2.8 stays home. I carry the accessory 135 viewfinder, which gives a life-size image and I can sight with both eyes open for a "world with a frame around it" view. I also use the APO-Telyt with the Komura 2x. The rangefinder coupling is a joke so I pre-focus with just the lens and then mount the 2x. I got my 2x a few years back for $75 from the late Eddie Tillis, one of the finest gentlemen ever in the camera business, for $75--it's usually $200 or more--without a finder, so I use the rangefinder patch as a frame. 270mm on an M6 without needing a Visoflex is a nice option in a pinch.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 14, 2001.

Andrew

Great portrait. Nosed your photonet folder and really like your "Three Young Girlfriends" a lot! Besides compositorial aspects the fact that you decided for the moment when just one of them was looking at you while the other two seem distracted. Spot on.

As for the 135 - apart from weight and bulk, both mentioned already - I have one and hardly use it at all on my M while I was using a 200 on my SLR quite frequently. I think the anticipation of the final result is just to approximate through a rangefinder for me. No control of DOF, no precise foreground/background alignment. It may well work for classical portraits as the one you propose or distant land- or townscape details, but neither for spontaneous documentary shots nor for sophisticated compositions. 75 is the limit for me to feel comfortable with the guesswork inherent in a rangefinder camera, made tolerable by experience.

I'm happy this shot here came out as expected. I was pushing for a shallow DOF and precise foreground/background allignment was crucial - both of which I had no indication of in the M viewfinder:

hereslookingatyou.jpeg

I took it with the 75 @ f:2. I wouldn't have dared to try anything similar with a 135 on the M.

Cheers

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), July 15, 2001.

Andrew asks, "Anyone notice that a 135mm lens on a rangefinder seems much more of a telephoto when using it than the same focal length on an SLR?"

This might be a function of the psychological effect of first viewing the actual print or slide, when in your mind's eye you recall the M's viewfinder image. I have quite a problem using longer lenses on my M because, while I know I will have a sliver of DOF, pre- visualizing it is very difficult. When my photos come back from the lab, I am often seeing things for the first time when looking at shots with my 90mm lens... never mind the 135. With the SLR, we can see the DOF, play with the aperture and preview lever, and for the most part that photos that we see will look much like what we see in the finder.

Nice photo Andrew. I often wonder if I would be using my longer lenses if I held onto my M3s. I use my 135mm f/2.0 on my Nikon all of the time, but on the Leica M 50mm is long enough for me.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 15, 2001.

Thanks for your positive comments. One of these days I need to get around to rounding up a bunch of my best work, scanning it in, and putting them in folders at Photo.net to share with my on line photo friends. I can't believe how time consuming it is to do that! It makes me appreciate how much work must go into the photo web sites many of you have going. By the way, I also have used the 135mm lens with my Minolta CLE and an old Canon finder, and was surprised how well that set up worked out. The CLE focused the 135mm pretty well- better than I thought it could- although I'd be careful using it wide open at the closer distances.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 15, 2001.

Andrew:

Great photograph! I have the 135 Tele-Elmar too and it is a stunning performer. The new 135 APO is better, but the Tele-Elmar has almost APO performance. Sometimes I think about selling the 135 TE and buying the 135 APO, but I use it so little that it is not financially justifiable!...............................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), July 15, 2001.

I am considering an older 135 for my CLE. My 2 concerns where the quality of the older 135 and whether the CLE would focus it. The quality is most acceptable from your pic listed above, any further views on using it with your CLE would be appreciated.

-- James Cooke (james.c@mis.net.au), July 15, 2001.

The Tele-Elmar is an APO lens even though it was not labeled as such by Leica back then. In the lens test I did with it, it resolved as much detail as my current 90 Elmarit and 50 Summicron-pretty impressive for a 135mm lens. It is excellent even wide open--much better than the Hektor and Elmar older lenses. At f5.6 and f8.0 it is outstanding. I have read several comments from people who have upgraded to the current 135mm lens, and none have them have noticed any significant improvement in their images. The CLE can focus this lens OK, whether you can live with a seperate finder is the issue. I know some folks prefer using the 135mm finder anyway as it gives a better perspective than a tiny box in the finder window. You just can't shoot as fast having to focus in one window and frame in another. At least with the CLE, exposure can be set to AE to help speed up the shot.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 15, 2001.

Great expression you captured in that shot! The 135 Tele Elmar is the least used of my M lenses however I would certainly hate to be without it. It is superb in color rendition and a great performer wide open. I have the E39 version. I've used it on my M6 with motor to shoot a womens Lacross match with a good percentage of decent shots. (although I had to do a lot more running up and down the sidelines than those with the big tele's). Framming and focus are certainly more dificult than with an SLR, but quite manageable. For the price they are a good value and very affordable by Leica standards.

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), July 15, 2001.

So those of us that do not own a Tele/elmar yet, hurry up to get one before prices rise, this site is becoming so popular lately.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 15, 2001.

That's not too far fetched actually-the comment about what we say affecting prices. I noticed a while back at one of the Robert Monaghan's medium format sites a bunch of comments were posted on which old roll film folders were the best to use. Within a month or so, all the ones talked about had doubled in value on E-bay.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 15, 2001.

The Tele-Elmar is one really sharp and great lens. I have in my portfolio a shot of a Circus clown taken by available light,on M3.Truly astounding.Beautiful portraits. I would prefer a90mm lens though.Easier to compose and dont feel so far away from subject.I like to be real close even for candids,either asked or stolen..It is an APO-lens.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), July 19, 2001.

I have an f4 Elmar 135mm. A lovely lens for people and much else. Perhaps not so great as the newer lenses for micro-resolution, but the overall look and apparent sharpness of the resulting shots are just excellent, which is surely what counts and these lenses are very cheap to buy nowadays. I bet the 135mm APO is a real winner - but it is very large compared to my Elmar, which is long, but thin and very light.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.

I purchased a 135 Tele Elmar a few years ago and have used it exactly two times. I originally used it with my M3 but found the image really small and difficult to fucus accurately. Now that I have an M6 Classic I have not used the lense at all. Optically it is excellent but quite bulky to use and carry around. Anyone interested in purchasing it? Practically mint condition with original hood and rear cap. Since I havn't seen it in so long I really can't remember anything else about it!

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), July 20, 2001.

I just purchased this lens on e-bay for 400, I hope it's all that everyone claims! I can't wait for it to come to try out. Thanks for the info. Ed

-- Ed mcbreen (bun14@aol.com), July 24, 2001.