Hi all,

I have always wanted to get a 135 to fill the range. Lately, I have looked at an used 135/2.8 elmarit and the well known 135/3.4 telyt. I have read Putts's book on lenses, and understand the pros with the telyt. Just before I invest in this, can anyone who has experience with both, tell me which lens is better in terms of "bokeh" and the ability to retrieve details from shadow area. I ran into a dilemma as to whether I need high conrast with fine details OR low contrast with more details from shadow area.

Thanks for your help.

-- Jeff Yiu (jeffyiu@quamnet.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

You should look at the previous generation 135 Tele-Elmar. A great performer (when I borrowed on once) at a great price. You'll save hundreds of dollars over the 3.4 and really... how much $$$$ would you pay for that extra 1/2 stop anyways? Theoretically... the Apo/Telyt has the edge in terms of sharpness... if you happen to be a marble statue holding the camera. Practically... I'll bet that the average experienced user's minute camera shake will obliterate this advantage.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

I have to agree with John. If you intend to use a 135, you'll need either a bean bag or some other imprompto support - - or a study tripod. The 135 is a superb lens; however, you've gotta' keep it STEADY; otherwise, you can't get the best from the lens. I know-- I've been there, and I've sold my 135, as at my age, I can't hand hold one of those beauties any longer to produce flawless projected slides.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 11, 2002.

I have to agree with John. If you intend to use a 135 mm, you'll need either a bean bag or some other imprompto support - - or a study tripod. The 135 is a superb lens; however, you've gotta' keep it STEADY; otherwise, you can't get the best from the lens. I know-- I've been there, and I've sold my 135, as at my age, I can't hand hold one of those beauties any longer to produce flawless projected slides.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 11, 2002.

John has summed it up very well, and if Jay chimes in on this topic (again), I'm sure he'll agree too :)

I bought the previous Tele-Elmar (with the built-in hood) on Jay's recommendation and am not at all disappointed. IMO it performs darn near as well as my 90APO, and that is saying something! I over-paid at $700 for my "mint" example, but I figure I saved about $700 over a Hong Kong 135APO and am only giving up a half stop in the process.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

I agree with the above. The difference in price between the 135/4 TE and the 135/3.4 AT is far far less than the difference in the cost (on the order of $ 1000 or so difference). With the money you save, you can buy another lens!

The 136/2.8 RF Elmarit will cost you about the same as a 135/4 TE on the used market ($ 500 or maybe a little less depending on the cosmetic condition). This is also a very fine lens, and offers exquisitely accurate focussing because of the 1.5 X magnification of the EF-VF attachment. The main downside of this lens is its weight and bulk, which may deter you from using it very often. But it is still a good deal pricewise on the used market.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 11, 2002.

Sorry. I meant to say the difference in "performance" of the two lenses is far less than the difference in price.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 11, 2002.

I have read, in this thread and others, a great deal of praise of the 135/e Tele Elmar. Right now, I'm on the lookout for a good one!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

Thanks for all these valuable comments. For the TE 135/4, which version should I look for ? First version code 11851 or the latest code 11861 ?

Thank You again.

-- Jeff Yiu (jeffyiu@quamnet.com), March 12, 2002.

It doesn't matter which version. All versions of the 135 TE have the same optical formula, and so will perform identically, provided the glass is clean. The more recent version has a built in extendible hood and a slimmer profile, but is more expensive, and relatively few were made. The older version requires the clip on lenshood (IUFOO or 12575), but should be less expensive, even with the lenshood included. This lens was introduced in 1965 and last made in the mid- early 1990s. Over this interval of time, the basic optical formula was never changed; but it is possible that the coatings have improved over the years (or maybe not). In practice, any version you buy should be OK. case,

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 12, 2002.

For the TE 135/4, which version should I look for ? First version code 11851 or the latest code 11861 ?

Optically they are identical. The newer 11861 uses 46mm size filter and has the build-in sliding lens hood. 11851 takes 39mm size filter and requires a separate 12575 reversible lens shade. Ergonomically I think the newer 11861 is better but it also costs a lot more than that of 11851. You will not be disappointed with the performance of either one. If cost is a concern, get the 11851 and pair it with 12575.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), March 12, 2002.

I'm a fan of the 135/f2.8 Elmarit (though I haven't compared its performance to the Telyt). If you don't mind the size, it can produce beautiful images, and it's relatively cheap.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

Hello Jeff. 135mm. Tele Elmar is a significant performer ..and balances nicely in your hands. M3 framelines for this lens are best but 0.72 mag. finder is adequate with practice. Early versions have removeable head for Viso./Leicaflex use with proper adaptors and mounts.As a comparison the f2.8 Elmarit is a bulkier lens to handle,gives softer images to f5.6 and despite advantage of magnifying spectacles attached to lens,should be considered as a purchase only for it's one stop advantage. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.