I have been thinking about using an M for medium telephoto shooting. I speculate that the 0.85 body and the option to use the 1.25x eypiece makes 90mm and 135mm lenses much more servicable on an M. Am I wrong? While I realize that there is no DOF visualization, I have become accustomed to this with my 50mm and don't mind the rangefinder.

Query: Are there any 90mm and especially 135mm shooters out there? People who do this a lot. What finders do you like? Any special techiques? Problems? Do you think this "SLR only" territory?

I checked the archives and there doesn't seem to be much discussion on this point. Is this because no one uses the longer lenses?

Thanks.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 29, 2001

Answers

For documentary work, I use a 90 Summicron only about 5% to 10% of the time, and a 135 almost never. Neither focuses very quickly when working close to the subject.

On the other hand, I use both for shooting portraits/model portfolios where I have greater control over the subject. A 50 is still my most-used lens, but the 90 gets used about 35% of the time and my 135 "bug-eye" Elmarit gets used maybe 5% of the time. I'm using these on M3s where the 0.91 rangefinder provides very accurate focus (magnified by the eyes on the 135). I think the 90 qualifies as essential for these uses, and the 135 is, at the least, useful.

Image below was shot with the 135 Elmarit (shadow detail in sweater is clearly visible in the print).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 29, 2001.

I have a 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar that I use on my M6TTL .85 Even with the high mag M6 it's a tricky situation, so I've been eyeing the 1.25 magnifier. I also use a 90mm Summicron-M, which works well on a .85. The magnifier would probaly make it as nice as working with a 50mm.

feli

-- Feli di Giorgio (feli@d2.com), November 29, 2001.

Mike - just have to say this is simply a beautiful shot, and a beautiful subject.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 29, 2001.

Dan:

While I have not used it a lot, I obtained a 135TE a month or so ago. I am *very* impressed with the lens, and from the standpoint of perspective it kind of reminds me of shooting with the 180 on my SLR. Anyway, I have no focus problems using the 1.25 magnifier/.72 body combo with this lens wide open. BTW, I have the latest pre-asph verion (per Jay's recommendations) and love the lens!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 29, 2001.

I think 90mm is the break point for using a rangefinder. Even with my M3 I was never very comfortable trying to focus a 135 the few times I borrowed one and tried it. OTOH you can pick up agood used R4/R4S and the outstanding Elmarit R 135 2.8 for not very much money and probably get a lot more keepers and probably some beauties. I have this combo and don't currently use it much but when I do it is outstanding. The 90 Elmarit R or Summicron R are also by M standards quite reasonable. I usually carry the 28, 35, 50, 90 & 180 when I take out the R. One lens on R4 or R7 and the other 4 in a small but not too light bag. The 135 usually stays home unless I intend to use it for a portrait or close work. It is a great lens that is underrated. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), November 29, 2001.

I've used the 135/3.4 on a .85 with good results. I just got the 1.25, and I think it will make the combination even more usable. The 90 is prefectly usable on a .72 or .85 body. For longer lenses I prefer an SLR - my F3 with a 180 - but in the interests of just carrying one system, I find the 135 on the Leica to be quite usable. the main issues are accurate framing and estimating the effects of depth of field. Taking my cue from the estimable Mr. Dixon, here are a couple of examples (though my subjects are more prosaic than his :-): 135/3.4 APO-Telyt
90/2.0 APO-Summicron ASPH

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 29, 2001.

And my apologies for pooching the html on that last post :-/

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 29, 2001.

And for my encore, I'll turn off the centering. Sigh.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 29, 2001.

Thank you so much for all the replies. I hope more 135 users will comment, I think this is a good subject for the archives. Paul, your shots look excellent.

You may have noticed (in another thread) I am leaning toward a Leica- dominated kit. I like the compression of the 135mm focal length and I hope I can be satified with an M for that. My first step will be a 90, used with an 0.58 and 1.25x, and that pretty much equals a 0.72 set-up. Later, I'd get an 0.85 (or maybe a 0.72). Right now, I'm looking for a reasonably priced and good condition 90TE(thin), which is starting to look like a non-trivial task :^0 Maybe I should look at the CV 90.

Mike Dixon: Please tell me when you publish some of your portraiture! A nicely litho'd calendar would be just fine for me. I'll take two :-)

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 29, 2001.

I think I concur for the 135 you really need as much magnification as you can get, or go SLR, unless you are going to shoot closed down a lot. Look over Puts' comments and graphs on the rangefinder itself -- you will note two things, the M rangefinder system (especially on the 0.72, but even on the 0.85 it is close) has an accuracy that approaches the D.O.F. for the 75 1.4, 90 f2, 135 3.4 wide open -- and that would be with well defined (perfect) RF targets. Magnification (M3, or 1.25 telescope) will greatly improve the situation. Second, accuracy does drop off with distance (though DOF also increases). the 135 TE and especially the newest 135 are really marvelous, though.

try an experiment -- very close portraits, say 3-6 feet, head and shoulders. try to focus on the eye, and see how often sharp focus is just ahead (eyebrows), or just behind (hairline/ears). Always "okay", but this is an exmaple of the not so perfect RF focus target. A few mm's off is not "on target". After a few days use, despite really loving the new 135, I returned it as I couldn't quite master focus, the 1.25 should fix that, though the nuisance of it all...

-- Lacey Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), November 29, 2001.

I'll be happy to let you know in a couple of weeks. I'm adding one and the 1.25x at an upcomming Leica Day. It will be used on an .85 M. In the past I used one quite alot but back then SLR were not what they are today.

Steven

-- Steven Alexander (alexpix@worldnet.att.net), November 29, 2001.

Mike:

Perhaps you could post Cindy #3 and explain technique, equipment etcetera... :)))

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 29, 2001.

Dan:

I have and use the older (1964) Summicron on my M3 as the viewfinder is brighter and easier to use than the one on my M6 non- ttl. I enjoy both a 90 Elmar, 3 element and the Summicron. I also have a 135 Elmarit (bug-eyed) but it is not a favorite lens and will probably stay home most of the time. I like the idea of putting the 1.25x on the M6 for use with the longer lenses. I wonder if this looks something like the view with the 135 Elmarit? I also have an R for Macro and longer lenses, which are seldom used. I prefer to use the longer lenses on the Visoflex with the M's, but again this is seldom.

--MJ

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), November 29, 2001.

My 2 cents: I have used a 90 Elmarit-M at f/2.8 and f/4 with M6TTL 0.72, for tightly framed portraits, with few problems. I might get a 1.25x magnifier to enlarge the 90 framelines and make focusing easier, though. Never tried 135mm.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 29, 2001.

Dan:

Although most RF users nowadays tend to favor wide-angle lenses, that wasn't always true (why else would Leitz have bothered to make telephotos). I like to take pix of musicians & performers in available light (or darkness), so I'm a big fan of the short telephoto focal lengths (85, 90, 100, 105, & 135mm), & the faster the better. Here are a couple examples:

In no way do I think this is "SLR only" territory. In Contax RF mount, I have 3 Zeiss 85mm f/2 Sonnars (1 pre-WWII & 2 post-WWII), a Zeiss 135 f/4 Sonnar, a Nikkor 105 f/2.5, & a Nikkor 135 f/3.5. In Leica thread mount I have a Canon RF 100f /2 & a Nikkor 85 f/2. In Leica M mount I have 2 Leitz 90f /4 collapsible Elmars. I use all of these lenses w/my Leica M2 & M3, as well as my Contax II & IIa's. Having a higher magnification viewfinder is definitely a help.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 30, 2001.

Jack, a little cut and paste will take you where you want to go re: Cindy in black vinyl:

http://lynnfarmerphoto.net/iowboard/messages/2744.html

I haven't shot any live performances in several months, so I had forgotten about that use for the 90 and 135. Combined with the quietness and low-speed handheld performance of an M, the fast teles are extremely well suited for shooting in clubs.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 30, 2001.

I have no experience with M 135. I note however that using 0.72 classic + 90 elmarit wide open at short distances has brought me back a surprising low failure rate. Infinitely lower than the G2+90 (an utter disaster), but also lower than R5 or 8 with equivalent R elmarits.

So, I am not so sure about (MF) SLR superiority in that respect, and at those (75/80/90/100) focal lengths. I'd need to compare f1.4 portraits success rates of 75M and 80R to confirm this impression. As I am lusting to try those, anyone sending me both lenses will be,hem, thanked! ... ;-) But 135mm.... For very long years, 0.72 was the only magnification available in the catalogue, and I clearly remember T-E users arguing that focusing was not a major issue at f4, though the process was obviously less comfortable (not necessarily less reliable) than with a SLR or a M3.

Since the introduction of the 0.85, it has gradually become "common knowledge" that such a magnification was "necessary" for full aperture reliable focusing of the Nocti, 75 'lux, 90 'cron or 135 t- e. Spreading that "knowledge" is obviously a good way of helping Leica sell the new body, and the top end lenses...

Now comes the 1.25 eyepiece, and, all of a sudden, most of us seem to agree that the only solution for reliable focusing of those lenses is a 0.85 + 1.25 combo.

Anyway, all these discussions do instil a certain level of FUD in the highly populated 0.72 classic community (and that FUD probably also helps selling quite a few R 80/90/100-180 combos to the dedicated leicaphiles).

As I am among those who would not mind dumping SLRs altogether in daily usage, I would be very keen to really KNOW for sure how long and how open I may relaibly shoot with my good old classic (and yes, I am aware of Erwin's tables).

I really do not like that new eyepiece BTW (tried it in shop): it is bad enough to swap lenses during a shootout, really do not want to fiddle around with that expensive little thingy as well when swapping the 35 with the abovementionned lenses. And the screwed on thingy does stick out like a sore thumb...

Could any REAL 0.72 users relay their REAL personal success/failure rates with 75 'lux or 135 t-e on their M2/4/6? Please!

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), November 30, 2001.

Its been a while since I used my .72 M6 classic with the 90 Tele- Elmarit, but I agree with Jacques. Focus accuracy with it was never an issue, oh, about 5 years ago when my eyesight was pretty good.

The real issue was the tiny frameline. Especially when doing portraiture, it really was pretty hard to get a good idea of the 'look' of the final picture, and more to the point, hard to detect subtle variations in facial expression that might effect a tight portrait from a 90, as opposed to a looser, more environmental portrait from a 50.

(Some may say this last bit makes little logical sense)

Now I have an .85 too, which I work with almost exclusively and the somewhat greater magnification and isolated frameline are wonderful for those 90 Elmarit people pictures.

I can't wait to see if the 1.25 works even better for those telephoto portraits. I can see it would be a nuisance that would get in the way of my using a 50 and 35. Time to start using the .72 as well, I guess, for everything 50mm and less.

(Over the long run Leica wins, and I become poorer)

Now, as for SLR portraiture at these longer focal lengths, I've used an 85mm AF lens in AF mode and also a 75-150 zoom lens in MF mode for portraiture.

It is much easier to make tight head shot portraits thus than with a Leica with a 90 (which I own) or a clunky 135 (which I have borrowed a few times).

But interestingly, critical focus accuracy does not increase with the SLRs (I'm often focused on an eyebrow instead of eyeball) but speed of follow-focus does, in both MF and AF, and so its just that I miss fewer moments with moving people subjects. Thus SLRs yield many more interesting, close up portraits.

But for perfectly timed, environmental portraits with a 50 or 35, especially of 2 or more people, the Leica is hard to beat.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 30, 2001.

I use a 90 quite a lot (actually two: Fast - and Small), and find that my .72 bodies work just fine most of the time, even at f/2. I'm glad the magnifier is available, but haven't felt a need for it, yet.

I do think it's critical to test the actual lens you plan to buy (or even several units to choose one) because there is some variation in both bodies and lenses and it doesn't take much to throw things out of whack with a fast/long tele on an RF. Find the one that works and then keep it forever.

Cases in point:

1) I've tried four 135s on my bodies (haven't bought anything yet) A 135 APO worked fine - a pre-1970 Tele-Elmar was 'way off in focusing (10 feet or so shooting 60 feet across the street) - a 135 Elmar (c. 1960) focused fine as well - a 135 f/2.8 with goggles misfocused by a foot or so at 10 feet.

2) I've had two 90 f/2s. The first was off fairly commonly. The current one, although older, is more reliable. I had a 90 Elmarit-M for a while that also was just unreliable (with my bodies) - while my 90 Tele- Elmarit is almost never off at any distance.

As someone already mentioned, the real limitation comes from framing - the 135 'box' is still pretty small even with an M3. But it's just a limitation, not a knockout punch. If I really want a 135 I'd still rather use the M.

But on the whole I'd rather get closer to my subjects (figuratively and literally) with a 90 or shorter. While we all know it's the photographer and not the equipment, in this regard the Ms 'limitations' really have forced me to take better pictures.

Follow-focus is tricker with the M. Some people become adept at it - I usually use trap-focus instead if the action is at all predictable. But then I often used trap-focus with SLRs - I ALWAYS turned the lens the wrong way trying to follow-focus!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.

I have always owned a 135 as well as 90's with all my Leica outfits over the years. I've still got an LTM Hektor, an early-70's Tele- Elmar, and the 3.4APO. (On an interesting side-note, despite the proclamations of a famous Leica lens-test author, I defy anyone to tell the difference between the latter two lenses in practice--and I *do* shoot on a tripod with slow slide film.) I find the 135 a very useful lens, in fact I occasionally shoot it with the Komura 2x, using just the rangefinder patch as a frameline. I have always used the 0.72x and never had a focusing problem. In fact I've shot the 135/3.4 wide open at 1.5m on the Hexar RF with no apparent focus issues. Though I do have the 1.25x magnifier, frankly with the smaller framelines the expansion is less evident (which makes mathematical sense). At least for the type of shooting I do, mostly scenics, the old accessory B/L finder is by far the best. Life-size image, both eyes open. Because the 135 frame is small and the 135's min. focus only to 1.5m, the field-size of the 135 frame suffers less cut-off at longer distances than the 90 frameline. I find I can trust the 135 frame at infinity, I just crop tight to the frame. With the 90 OTOH, at infinity I need to manually call up the 75 frame, which more accurately portrays what will appear on film. So in that respect the 135 is more convenient and quite often I forego the 90 altogether. With the 2x on the 50/2 I have a reasonable (100/4) pinch-hitter for the 90.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 30, 2001.

Dan:

I used to own the Leica M 135mm/f2.8 lens (with eyes) and also the 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar. The latter lens was of almost APO quality. I used both lenses with a M3 and a M6 TTL, and never felt comfortable with the small and often inaccurate viewfinder image. Focusing was not a problem with the M3. This is a focal length where I would prefer to use an SLR. So I sold both lenses. But I do use the 90 Summicron regularly with my M6 TTL 0.72.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 30, 2001.

Dan,

After resisting the 135mm focal length on the M6 for several years, I picked up an optically excellent, though cosmetically worn, Tele- Elmarit for what I figured was a pretty good price ($200). My initial results with it look very encouraging. I'm getting good sharp detail in shots focused at or near infinity. At closer distances I may be getting something similar to what Andy mentioned-- it may not be in perfect focus. My M6 rangefinder never quite reaches coincidence, even with an object a mile away, when the lens is hard against the infinity stop.

The lens probably won't go on airline trips, when I want to hold down the weight and bulk. And I agree with Muhammed that I'd rather use an SLR at this focal length--I have the Elmarit for the R4. But if I've left the R4 home, and have film only in the M6, the 135 seems worth having along. It's not so difficult to compose in that little postage stamp frame as I had feared.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 30, 2001.

I recently picked up a 90 Tele-Elmarit (for $300 in 9+ condition!) that I've been using for street work in NYC. I like the compressed look of pictures shot with the 90. It's evocative of life in a cramped and crowded city. And you can't beat the size of it--vert comfortable to carry around. Yesterday, I sent my M3 to Golden Touch for repair. I think the 90 will live on that body for a while once it returns, and I'll save the shorter lenses for my M6 .72

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 01, 2001.

Jacques wrote: >Could any REAL 0.72 users relay their REAL personal success/failure rates with 75 'lux or 135 t-e on their M2/4/6? Please! < Manny answered: >The real issue was the tiny frameline. Especially when doing portraiture, it really was pretty hard to get a good idea of the 'look' of the final picture, and more to the point, hard to detect subtle variations in facial expression that might effect a tight portrait from a 90, as opposed to a looser, more environmental portrait from a 50.<

Jacques: I think we're beginning to split hairs here... I use the .72 body with and without the 1.25 magnifier on my .72 body and I agree with Manny re the tiny frameline. The rf patch remains the same size whether you're focusing a 28 or a 135, it's the framelines around the patch that shrink as you use longer lenses. I do not have problems focusing my 135 with the .72 body, but find the combination of magnified framlines AND rf patch when the 1.25 is attached to be of bennefit with the 90 and 135 -- and I can focus the 90 at f2 on my .58 body without problems. So while I personally do not see a need for a .85 body and agree that it is probably not a necessary set-up, I respect others who might prefer the perspective they get with a .85 body dedicated to 50mm and longer lenses, or even a .85 body + 1.25 dedicated to 75mm and longer lenses.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 01, 2001.

I've used my 75/1.4 with an M6 0.72 with absolutely no problems in low light conditions and tightly framed images. However, I think I would prefer a 0.85 if given the choice, if only for having a slightly larger image.

The 135/4 is a completely different story. I have trouble with the 135 on a 0.72. Probably the 0.85 would help, but my feeling is a 90 will always be a faster lens to use on an M6. In fact, I use the 135 so rarely I'm planning on trading it for something I'll probably use more often--a 50/2.

And as for the 1.25 magnifier, I don't plan on purchasing it since I wear eyeglasses, and cannot easily see the outer frames lines with wider angle lenses. (I also don't want to have to put it on and then have to remove it when I change lenses.)

-- Robert L Jones (mail@visionsurgery.net), December 22, 2001.