Does anyone have any experience with the 135/2.8 Elmarit-M? Some on (0n this forum?) wrote:

>Best value in the whole Leica system for a protrait specialist? >The 135 Elmarit 2.8. Sharp without being brutal and with the subtlest >rendition of colors I have ever seen.

Any views?

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002

Answers

Hi Mitch,

I've had the Elmarit M 135/2.8 "Goggles" since 1985. I bought it near mint for 85,000 yen.

General experiences. It's a heavy guy. It takes good pictures.

For years this was my least used lens for Leica. Even on those occations when I needed (or wanted to use) a 135 I would take along my old Canon 135/3.5: a well-built and optically good lens.

Along comes the Hexar RF and the Voigtlander love handles (the two bottom grips.) What a combination!

If you have the money and you have not other burning needs, get one.

I'll be back for more later.

cheers,

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 28, 2002.

I find the 135MMf2.8 Elmarit to be an outstanding lens, equal in quality to any Leica lens of similar vintage. The lower than usual prices is due solely to its weight. It is not for the day-long trecks that some photographers make with a camera or two around the neck. The extra weight of the "eyes" is just too much. The eyes do make the focusing VERY accurate. I use it with an M-6 .58 and get outstanding results even wide open. Kajabbi

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), February 28, 2002.

Hi Mitch,

I was in a rush suddenly and my first message came out a bit garbled.

Weight is an issue, but not an outstanding one. The 135/2.8 is well under 800 grams, not light but then not exceedingly heavy.

Something else to consider, though. The "eyes" do not come off. If you use it with the motor You'll have to put it on before putting on the motor and you cannot take it off until the roll is rewound and you can safely take the motor off.

The 135/2.8 comes with a tripod socket. I've found it great fun to screw in the round Voigtlander bottom grip into it and use the lens on my Hexar RF. The magnification makes the Hexar a better focuser and you can take the lens on and off. The grip makes this lens extremely comfortable in the hands.

Question: Do you need it?

I bought my 135/2.8 when I was shooting at a lot of conferences and needed a long lens with a quiet camera. Over the years I've seldom used it--but primarily indoors photographing speakers at lectures. If you need a long lens over 90mm to go on a quiet camera like the Leica M6 or M7, I say go for it. It's the best in the business.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 28, 2002.

Kajabbi : how do you frame it with your .58, which doesn't have the 135 frame?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

Stephan: The 135 Elmarit uses the 90 framing and the increased magnification. The viewfinder has a different feel to it with this lens. The viewfinder shows the area for the 135 and VERY little else due the goggles.

Mitch: The 135 is my least used lens, purchased new 25+ years ago. It is heavy and awkward with the goggles on it. I haven't sold it because I don't like to sell my gear. It might be the one lens I would like sometime in the future. I recently took some moose shots with it and it was just right.

:)

-- Mark A. Johnso (logical1@catholic.org), February 28, 2002.

The short answer: it's relatively big and heavy, it focuses quite accurately, and it can take beautiful photos. There was a thread a few months ago on the topic where a lot of people contributed experiences and examples (not sure where in the archives it's hiding, but it's worth tracking down).

Shot below was taken at about f4.5 with the 135 Elmarit.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 28, 2002.

>>The 135 is my least used lens, purchased new 25+ years ago.

Mine too. I bought it three years ago, and am trying to get inspired to start using it.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002.

Mike:

Thanks. Good picture.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002.

Mike:

I found the thread you referred to: <>Opinions on older 135s?>> in the Leica M archives. Interesting. Many people didn't like the weight.

There is an earlier and later version. I have the earlier. Anyone know the difference (but not in Erwin Puts-ese.)

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002.

Mitch,

I believe the primary difference between the two versions of the 135/2.8 Elmarit-M was in filter size. The earlier (1963-1976) version was Series 7, and the later (1976-1996) used E55 filters. I'm not sure if there were any optical differences - my impression is that there weren't any, but I could be wrong.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 28, 2002.

Ralph. The first version of the 135/2.8 RF lens was unique to the M- system. The second version was a different optical formula, changed to equal that of the R-system lens. There were also a number of minor barrel changes as well as the filter size change that you mentioned. I don't know about the optical performance of the V1 vs V2 lenses, but the optics are completely different, though both 5- elements.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 28, 2002.

Don't know about the 135/2.8 Elmarit's quality, but every OTHER major manufacturer has had a 135/2.8 (or thereabouts) and they've generally been quite good. I'd expect nothing less from Leitz.

As far as the usefulness goes.. I prefer the 135ish length for shooting portraits, either close up head, head/shoulders shots, or even more upper torso - the reason being I can throw the background out of foucs more, and get a bit more of the flat look than with a typical 90mm or 100mm (on an slr) lens.

I've got a 135 Elmarit right here on my desk... waiting for that M4-2 to get patched up. We'll see how the quality is in a month or so.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), February 28, 2002.

Had an early first version for about a dozen years. Comments:

Heavy. Is there ever been a Leitz M lens as heavy? Unless I thought I really needed the speed, I found that I was more often than not carrying the f/4 Elmar.

Beautifully made. Extremely smooth focus. As others have stated the viewfinder image takes some getting used to.

Wide open didn't think it was that great, being a little soft around the edges, but must say that that is a subjective opinion. Others may no doubt disagree.

Bottom line? I sold it (happily for more than I paid for it), but not by that much considering I had it for over a decade. That I did so is saying something, as it's only the second Leitz lens I've ever sold in 40+ years.

As I'm sure most of the posters are aware, the latest 135 f3.4 is reported to blow away all the older 135s. If the reports are correct, it isn't even close. And you only lose 1/2 a stop.

Best,

Jerry

As mentioned

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 28, 2002.

Jerry:

The report that the new 135/3.4 is so good that the 135/2.8 "isn't even close" come from Erwin Puts. The trouble is that Puts evaluates minuscule differences that aren't even visible to the eye as "great advances." Or these differences can only be seen if you use a heavy tripod and shoot Kodachrome 25 or Kodak Tech Pan. Puts is such an apologist for Leica that he has to be taken with large grains of salt.

The trouble is that the lenses from all the best manufacturers have gotten to be so good that the actual differences in resolution and contrast -- the things that Puts measures -- are so minor that only this type of differentiation of minutiae can be made.

It used to be that Leica always stated that its lenses were not designed to win contests but to create a type of image...now they seemed to be designed to win lens contests. The trouble is that to most of these lens characteristics are not visible, unless we do the type of testing that Puts does. But that ain't photography.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002.

In response to the comment about weight, the 135/2.8 RF Elmarit is the heaviest M lens made for direct use coupled to the camera's rangefinder. There were bigger and heavier lenses for the M system, but these were all made for use with the Visoflex system, which provides for mirror reflex viewing. In fact, one advantage of the 135/2.8 (I think this is true of all versions, but maybe not for the last ones?) is that the lenshead unscrews for use with the appropriate adapter (No. 16462, I think) on the Visoflex III (or other Viso unit). Thus you can use this lens for through the lens viewing, though maybe not for the M6TTL which has the 2mm taller body.

The 135/2.8 RF also has the distinction of being the bulkiest M lens, on account of the finder. But because of the 1.5X mag factor, it gives critically accurate focussing at F/2.8 as well as easier viewing, due to magnification of the image. If you can live with the size and bulk, it is otherwise a very fine lens. I have a really early one, with red footage scale, scalloped focussing ring, tripartite extendable hood, and finder attachment secured with screws. The later ones had yellow footage scale, finely knurled focussing ring, unibody hood, and finder secured by a casting to the lens body.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 28, 2002.

Alex Shishin wrote:

Something else to consider, though. The "eyes" do not come off. If you use it with the motor You'll have to put it on before putting on the motor and you cannot take it off until the roll is rewound and you can safely take the motor off. ==================================================================== Alex,

Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand why the "eyes", which are above the lens, should interfere with the motor, which attaches to the bottom of the camera. Could you please explain why it's a problem?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Presumably because with the new motor which has the built in battery compartment/handle, turning the lens to take it off jams the eyes against the handle. Yet another reason to use rapidwinders.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 01, 2002.

Ray,

Happy to explain the eye problem. I was referring to the current motor, now the old motor. The new motor has a big grip. When you try to put the goggled 135/2.8 on it knocks against the grip and won't mount. If you mount the lens and then put on the new motor you can't get the lens off for the same reason. The grip is in the way. With the older motors, which have no grip, there is no such problem, of course.

I should have mentioned that the 135/2.8 brings up the 90mm frame and magnifies it to 135. It is the ideal lens for the M6 0.58 and the M2 if you don't want to use an external 135 finder. I think it is also ideal for the Hexar as the 135 frame is very small and hard to focus with.

I've tried using this lens with the Abrahamsson Rapidwinder. It is hard because of the general weight and balance of the lens. On a tripod it would be a different story I imagine.

Mitch--Back to you--

As you have gathered, this is not a lens for everyone. Like many others, I use this lens least among my RF lenses. Like many others, I don't want to part with mine.

The portraits I shoot with it are generally those of speakers at conferences. I use fast (800/1600) film, and never use a tripod or a flash. Though heavy, I've found this lens to be well balanced when held right.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 01, 2002.

Alex,

Thak you for the explanation. Some people have said that there is no such thing as a stupid question - well, there is! And I was the one who asked it! I have the new Motor-M and I should have remembered that the grip sticks up and could interfere with "eyes". So, flame away, me hearties!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 03, 2002.