I am thinking of buying a 135mm for my M6. It's likely I won't use it so much and I don't want to spend what the latest 3.4 will cost, so I'm looking secondhand.

The immediate predecessor of the 3.5 seems to be well thought of - the Tele-Elmar M f4 in the version made from 1993 with the built in hood, but I would welcome your views.

Can the 2.8 Elmarit-M with the spectacle viewfinder be used on the M6?

What are prices like?

Many thanks.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), May 05, 2002

Answers

Paul,

I had the Elmarit M and I have now the Tele-Elmar (separate hood version).

The "eared" Elmarit worked fine with my M5 0.72 finder. It works equally well with an M6 (TTL or not) with a 0.72 finder.

It was impossible to use with my Hexar RF 0.6 finder, because it created a very disturbing black border around the finder and darkened it considerably ... I'm not sure it won't do the same with a 0.58 finder on an M and don't know what could happen with a 0.85 version ...

Now the result... My Elmarit + M5 combination was fine but the lens was cumbersome to use and the results were not convincing at full aperture (too soft)... The lens is by the way equipped for use on a tripod with its own support...

The f/4 Tele-Elmar is a splendid lens which performs perfectly fully open and reach is maximum efficiency at f/5.6 (no need to close down more, it will not improve anything). I never used the new apo f/3.4 but from what Erwin Puts says in its test, it just performs to its maximum since full aperture and is not "that" an improvement over the already almost perfect Tele-Elmar...

As the 0.58 M has no frame for a 135 mm I only can say that the inconveniencies and slightly less good performances of the Elmarit might be a "necessary evil" if the viewfinder magnification doesn't produce the same effect as on an Hexar when the "ears" are in front of the body as it permits you to use it without the trouble and expense of an auxilliary finder.

Otherwise the Tele-Elmar is better and handier to use both in a 0.72 and 0.85 body... And it is by far a much better lens.

There is absolutely no difference in optical formula or results between a Tele-Elmar with built in hood and an older version... If you find an older version in mint condition (like mine) do not buy a more expensive more recent one (the hood is not collapsible but can be affixed to the lens turned upside down with the lens cap on it). This is a clipable hood (very robust, all around the lens front) and it is no more a liability than a collapsible one.

Hope it helps.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 05, 2002.

"What are prices like?

The older f/4 Tele-Elmar (11851 - the one with the detachable lens hood) normally sell for $350-$450 USD depending on the lens condition. The last version of f/4 Tele-Elmar with build-in lens hood (11861) normally sells for twice as much.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), May 05, 2002.

Having used both ( I have since sold the f2.8), I would recommend f4 over the f2.8, for ergonomics and performence. Some people think of f4 as an undeclared apo lens. Buying second hand, check the focusing ring as they often develop a bit of play which can be quite annoying.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), May 05, 2002.

I second the recommendation for the Tele-Elmar f/4. As was said the earlier versions (optically identical) are about half the price of the final version. The lens head of the early version unthreads and can be mounted on a bellows or directly to a Visoflex with the proper adaptors. It also takes an E39 filter which may be convenient depending upon the other lenses you own. The late version takes E46.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 05, 2002.

I have a mid 1960's Tele-Elmar that is an amazing lens. It has to be an APO lens whether Leica called it that or not, as it compares to the famed ED Nikkor Teles in the clarity, color, and contrast at wide open apertures. For the money, its also a good buy in a Tele for a Leica M-I paid about $260 for one with great glass and a few scuffs on the barrel. Works wonderful on my M3. I used to have a Hektor and also an older 135mm Elmar that I thought were pretty good lenses. The Tele-Elmar was dramatically sharper and had better color. It is a solid,heavy lens.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 05, 2002.

I also highly recommend the Tele-Elmar. I have used mine (39mm) with M3 and the images it produces are amazingly good. Plus, you can find them used with decent condition for around $300 to $400 range, one of the best bargain in Lecia M lenses, IMHO.

-- CIng-Dao Kan (cdkan@yahoo.com), May 05, 2002.

Try the 135 Tele-Elmarit/f4 with the rubber hood originally made for the C90/f4. Makes for a very compact package (you can put it in your pocket) and has already been noted the lens is a wonderful performer. Have fun, you might try the 1.25x magnifier with the 135mm if your eyes are getting older as are mine, I've been thinking about purchasing one but have not made the move yet.

-- Richard (wpcdallas@aol.com), May 05, 2002.

Try the 135 Tele-Elmarit/f4 with the rubber hood originally made for the C90/f4. Makes for a very compact package (you can put it in your pocket) and has already been noted the lens is a wonderful performer. Have fun, you might try the 1.25x magnifier with the 135mm if your eyes are getting older as are mine.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), May 05, 2002.

Is that a 135 Tele-Elmar in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), May 05, 2002.

Paul

If you do not need the current APO version I think you need the Tele-Elmar, but paying extra for the built in hood version seems unnecessary. I bought a new in the box TE old style (1973) for $500 and it is a beauty. Unlike when I had the M3 when I used the 135mm a good deal I don't use it that much on the M6, but it does deliver the goods when you need it.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

Here's another vote for the Tele-Elmar. I acquired one recently, was very pleased with the image quality; did not find it difficult to use with the .72 finder (even better with the M3); and I'm looking forward to getting lots of good use out of it.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 06, 2002.

Thanks for all your helpful advice. I've managed to pick up an older Tele-Elmar in good optical shape and am looking forward to seeing what it can do. I've also ordered a 1.25x magnifier so I hope I'm set up properly now. Your comments on prices were remarkably accurate.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), May 08, 2002.