The pricing of older 135s seem make them a relative bargain in the realm of long focal length Leica lenses; very nice examples clock in around $400 on a regular basis. I also haven't read of any "known issues" with these lenses, such as with the 90 tele-elmarit.

I'd like to solicit the input of those of you who have direct experience with the following:

First version (E39) 135 Tele-Elmar-M f/4 135 Elmar f/4 (the long chrome one) Bonus question/dark horse candidate: the bespectacled 135 Elmarit-M f/2.8

I'm interested in image quality and any lens-specific issues. Likes/dislikes? Favorites? Where's the size/weight burden threshold in your opinion?

Thanks,

-- Rick (rpkoo@pacbell.net), January 22, 2002

Answers

The 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar is a fantastic, stunning lens, but can be difficult to use with the standard (.72x) finder, since the frame is small. It reputedly comes very close to the latest Apo lens (although I cannot confirm this, never having owned the latest lens). I had an example from the first year of production (1965, if memory serves), and was very impressed with the image quality. It's large, but not unmanageable on an M4/M6 size camera. The only reason not to go for it would be the reason mentioned above, unless you're really strapped for cash. You can find clean examples of this lens for not a lot of money these days.

-- Dan Kreithen (dkreithen@mindspring.com), January 22, 2002.

Well, I borrowed a 135/2.8 and I can tell you its on MONSTER! Definitely a reason why these lenses are lowballed in terms of pricing! The best 135 to go with (if I had one in my kit) would be the 135F4 Tele-Elmarit. Great lens at a bargoooon price compared to the newer 135 Apo-Telyt.

P.S. There is sample variation amongst the 90 Tele-Elmarits produced but if you can find a good example of a Canadian lens chances are its discounted heavily and also a good bargo-o-o-n. Especially if there are slight cosmetic imperfections on the barrel that don't affect image quality.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 22, 2002.

Have you considered the Canon & Nikon 135/3.5's in LTM? Excellent lenses @ low, low prices.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 22, 2002.

The 135/4 Tele-Elmar is a wonderful lens. The only differences between it and the latest 135/3.4APO are that the APO is a half stop faster and a little better stopped down. The 135/4TE is a highly recommended lens.

The 135/2.8 has the same optical formula as the R lens (both versions). I like it and it is a very good performer. Look here for Doug Herr's review:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/135R28.HTM

I like the goggled version of the 135/2.8 as the magnifier brings it up to almost 1.0X and you can open both eyes. The M version is also easier to focus in dim light.

Both these lens are a very good value right now. If you want to shoot indoors, consider the f/2.8. The f/4TE is a perfect pocket long lens as it takes up very little room.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 22, 2002.

I have the most recent pre-APO 135 Tele-Elmar, and am very impressed with its performance, even wide open. I cannot answer you regarding a direct comparison to the current APO version, but I'm sure Jay will chime in at some point and tell you his story ;-)

Also, as regards the 90TE, as John stated, clean ones seem to be very good performers. I had one that was full of dust yet it still produced great images. I sold the lens when I bought the 90 APO and soon regretted it, so I purchased a newer German version. No dust in this one, and it performs even better than my first one. Unfortunately, clean 90TE's are not much of a bargain now, as very clean ones sell for about the same money as a very clean 90 Elmarit. The Elmarit is probably a better lens at f2.8 and possibly even f4, but the compact and lightweight TE is certainly a joy to travel with!

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 22, 2002.

I have a 135/2.8 Elmarit. The size/weight are very similar to the older (big) 90 Summicron (but with goggles grafted on). I regularly hand-hold a medium format and an old Canon F1 tank, so the size and weight don't bother me. If you have small hands, or if compact size is important, the Elmarit probably wouldn't suit you.

Using the goggles isn't quite as elegant as an unencumbered viewfinder, but it does provide a larger set of framelines and more accurate focusing.

The optical quality is excellent. It may not stack up to the latest APO in terms of "sharpness," but it can produce beautiful images.

My example had well-worn cosmetics but near-perfect glass (after cleaning off the dust), and it cost only US$250.

I could live without the 135mm focal length, but it does come in handy on occasion.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 22, 2002.

Rick

Both the Elmar and the Tele-Elmar's are nice lenses. The Tele-Elmar is shorter and a better performer than the Elmar in terms of microdetail, but the Elmar is really beautiful too,lighter (and longer) and is particularly nice for portraits. The Elmars and Elmarits are particularly good value s/h. I have a nice Elmar for sale with hood and caps if you are interested...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Richard Oesterling at KB Camera also alludes to buying lenses with slight hazing to achieve a "glow" that you otherwise would NOT get with ultra sharp lenses. I've thought about getting a 135 Tele-Elmarit with a little fog under the critical light source test to see if this is true. Hell, when I bought my 90 TE it DIDN'T pass the critical light source test but the test images before and after the CLA didn't look all that different. Maybe had I put my set-up on a carbon fibre tripod with a really-right-stuff QR I would've seen the difference.

...and who knows? You might like the effects of the slight haze to for-go a CLA for quite some time!

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 22, 2002.

Chiming in....I have owned 5 135 Leica lenses over the years: f/4.5 Hektor (LTM), f/4 Elmar, f/4 Tele-Elmar (1975), f/4 Tele-Elmar (1994), f/3.4 APO-Telyt. I still own the Hektor, '75 T-E and the APO- Telyt. All of these lenses, right down to the old Hektor (mine's a late model, around 1956 as I recall), give an excellent showing. The Hektor and Elmar have an advantage in being equipped with a tripod attachment, although of the non-rotating type. All but the last (E46) T-E and the APO have removable lens heads that can be mounted (with appropriate adaptors) on either a bellows or short-helical- mount and used on a Visoflex--or, with one more adaptor, on an R body. Optically the typical Leica generational pattern can be found: the later lenses improve most significantly at the 2 widest apertures and almost insignificantly thereafter. The differences between the T- E (both versions optically identical) and the APO-Telyt are such that I would need Mr. Puts standing right next to me at the light table to point them out. I sold a late E46 T-E and nearly doubled the proceeds in order to buy the APO-Telyt. It's a great lens but not worth twice the T-E. As to the 135/2.8 I feel about it the same as I do about the Noctilux, 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron. It totally defeats the purpose of why I use the Leica M in the first place: compactness.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 22, 2002.

These are my opinions. But I could be wrong.

1. 135/4.5 Hektor BM. One of the cheapest leitz Wetzlar made in Germany lenses you can buy ($ 100-150). A good performer in its day, but it's day was > 40 years ago.

2. 135/4.0 Elmar BM (chrome). This is a very good lens, and relatively cheap at about $ 200-300 dependeng on condition. Like the Hektor, this is NOT a telephoto design. But optical quality significantly improved compared to Hektor.

3. Tele-Elmar 135/4.0 BM (black only). Made from 1965-1994 (?). Many barrel variations (latest have built-in-hood) but only one optical formula. However, it stands to reason that the later lenses may have improved optical coatings. In practice, any vintage lens with clear glass is recommended. Nearly apopchromatic, ONE OF THE BEST EVER 135s ever made by any lensmaker. And "dirt" cheap (for Leica, that is) at $ 400, because many are discouraged from using this focal length. Best mated with M6 0.85 VF and/or use 1.25 X magnifier. The limitation of this lens being the small VF frame for 135 mm. BUY THIS IF YOU WANT A 135 MM LENS!

4. 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt-M. Now offers full apochromatic correction. I agree with Jay Its at least $ 1000 more expensive than the 135/4.0 TE, but you would need Erwin and his MTF machine to show you the difference. The reason that this lens is only marginally better than the 135/4 TE is simple. Leitz got it right when they designed the TE. They really left little room for improvement.

5. 135/2.8 Elmarit w/ "eyes". Two optical versions, the second one matching the 135/2.8 Elmarit-R. A good lens whose advantages include one full stop over Elmar and TE as well as a 1.5X magnified 135 frame (actually, the lens brings up the 90 mm frame) with significantly increased accuracy of focussing, useful at F/2.8 in near range. This lens is not as good as the TE or the Apo-Telyt, but some people swear by it. My main problem w/ this lens is its great bulk, that dissuades you from carrying it. Lens is no longer in production, but can be bought used for about the same price as the TE.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 22, 2002.

Rick: I resisted the 135 FL for years because of the smallish viewing rectangle, and the alleged compromise in focusing accuracy. But 2 months ago I saw a cosmetically challenged one with perfect glass for $200, and couldn't resist. I do not find it tough to compose within the small finder area. The focus is good enough to give me tack sharp images. So, what's not to like?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 22, 2002.

I forgot to say, it's a Tele-Elmar. I shot my first roll using Delta Pro 400. I used 1/1000 second hand-held on a sunny day around f/8 & was pleased with the detail. Now to study my scanner manual & posting mumbo-jumbo so I can show you.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 22, 2002.

As a point of additional information, the 135/2.8 Elmarit also has the non-rotating tripod mount on the lens.

Just in case you care what difference the extra stop might make on DOF, the shot below was made with the lens wide open and the subject a couple of meters away. The image is cropped to about 50% of the negative area.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 22, 2002.

I don't think much of a 135 on an M. That said, previous photos posted are plently impressive. I've got a 2.8 with eyes and have hardly used it...it's very cumbersome. That seems to defeat the purpose of an M. I have done some very satisfactory shots with a Hektor on tripod or with fast film. One caveat: Use an accessory viewfinder. My advice is worth what you paid for it. Cheers

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

When I bought my M3 the dealer threw in a Hektor 13.5 for free because it was scratched on the barrel and not a desirable lens, but I couldn't give a hoot. Fact is, it's surprisingly good, has an excellent simple construction (it's a true "long lens" rather than a telephoto) and very good to use with the M3. Good for racing cars, and panning shots, and good, surprisingly enough, for floral shots, not just portraits.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 23, 2002.

sub-query: Was the Tele-Elmar 135 ever made in Canada, or alway German- built? I've only ever seen German, even from the era when everything else had moved to Midland (c. 1980)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 23, 2002.

Andy. Neither the 135/4.0 Hektor, nor Elmar, nor Tele-Elmar was ever made in Canada. These lenses were all made by Leitz Wetzlar, except for the very last Tele-Elmars, which were made in Solms and engraved Made in Germany.

However, the 135/2.8 Elmarit BM (1st and 2nd versions) were made by Leitz Canada. (There might be some very late ones from Solms in the 1990s, but there are NO Leitz Wetzlar versions of this lens.)

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 23, 2002.

Well, by my count, that's 8 for the Tele-Elmar out of 12 opinions.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 23, 2002.

Rick: One more vote for the 135/4 Elmar. I picked up one a couple of months ago; mint condition at $300 -- it's probably the best value in my bag. I bought mainly for Viso use, but I have been impressed by the overall sharpness of the lens in standard use, too. I used a 135 Hektor years ago and haven't been able to do a side-to-side comparison, but the Elmar doesn't leave much to be desired in my book.

The 135 is not an essential lens for the M, but it is nice to have -- especially if you can find a good one at a decent price.

-- Jim Reed (jimreedpc@aol.com), January 23, 2002.