How is this lens on an M6 ttl .85 ? Does this lens have the contrast and bokeh of the newer lenses ?

thanks, stuart

-- stuart babcock (stubab@camcomp.com), May 19, 2002

Answers

I've owned this lens for years, but I've only taken a few shots with it because of a lack of appreciation for not only the focal length, but for it's large size and small size of the frame lines in my classic .72 bodies. Of the several shots that I can identify having been taken with this lens, they're pretty good, i.e. sharpness, color, edge-to-edge sharpness. I don't any shots to clearly show out of focus (bokeh) area, as all my shots are either with flash indoors or taken outside... both stopped down pretty much. Interesting that you bring it up because I just brought it out yesterday to try it as a portrait lens wide open.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), May 19, 2002.

The newer version with the built-in hood and E46 filter size is the one I have experience with. It is an awesome lens in every respect. It essentially offers APO-quality performance from f4 up.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 19, 2002.

I agree with Jack. It IS an awesome lens. I use mine with an 0.72X VF and framing is not easy because the rectangle is quite small. A good argument for the 1.25X magnifier. You need to focus very carefully, especially at F/4.0 in the close range where DOF is tiny. Yes, you need to use it with care, even with an 0.85 VF.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 19, 2002.

I`ve had mine for at least 6 years and only used it twice-until last week: I put it on my M3 when I spotted a big grizzly along the highway @ about 150-200 meters distance. I used a tripod, the shots are tack sharp @ f8, TMX100. I got it side ways as well as facing me, just great. No rear-end shots, no bright eartags from the Park Service.

Several times I`ve thought of selling this lens, but I wouldn`t get much for it. I`m glad I kept it. With a one-lens-Zen-outfit I would have been a loser here. In 30 years of driving through the Rockies I`ve never seen a full grown grizzly this close, it sure pays to have the right equipment at hand.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), May 19, 2002.

To make this lens more useful Leica should make a telescope ocular for it as they do for the R lenses. It should have + or - 3 diopters. It would be the equivalent of a 10.8x monocular.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

Hi, Stuart.

I'm sorry I don't know about the M6 ttl .85 but if the M3 could be an acceptable reference, here is a photo taken with the Hector.

The way it is, it looks somewhat strange because of the colour/tone. I haven't worked it out so far but I will soon print it myself in B&W and load it up into Photonet again in the new improved (hopefully) version.

Enjoy the lens. I think Hans said it wisely: "Several times I`ve thought of selling this lens, but I wouldn`t get much for it. I`m glad I kept it".

Regards.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 19, 2002.

I've had one of these since the mid 70's, also had a late E46 version which I stupidly sold for a 3.4APO on blind faith from a well-known lens tester's glowing report. I still have the older sample, and as soon as I can bring myself to swallow what I'll lose selling the APO, I will do so. The 135 T-E (any version) is as good as it gets in Leica M lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

Jay, (or anybody else that has opinion on the matter): would you trade the apo for the T-E, not for the sake of money but for a better lens? I own the apo, and had a T-E which I returned, because of a focusing problem. from the little I knew the T-E, it was unbelivable (besides the problem this specific one had). but do you think the T-E is better? I tend to think that it is. But I am not sure. I think of trading the apo for the T-E. I wouldn't do it if they are the same. I don't like getting myself into new troubles. but I would if I will be convinced that the older is in fact better. my reasons for holding to the apo are 1) 3.4, but it is not crucial, 2) works fine up to 22, which is sometimes great for action. I don't know how the T-E is up there (in f-16, f-22). I love the colors in the T-E, but with the apo the colors are good only with Velvia. otherwise it looks pale. (of course Velvia doesn't help me work on f-16-22)

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), May 19, 2002.

Rami

I think that would be foolsih. By objective standards the current lens has to be better (higher resolution at wide apertures, corner resolution etc.): it has an APO designation which in my experience of Leicadom really does mean something special. It is also half a stop faster. You would also take a loss by trading it. So I think it would silly. The point is that the TE is almost as good, and is to all intents and purposes as good in practice but costs only half or a third as much. If you really do want to swap, then I will happily trade you my very nice (mint) TE for your APO. Seriously. I always prefer a faster lens...but I don't advise it.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Excerpt from Leica Lenses handbook (1968) : "The TELE-ELMAR introduces new standards of handiness,ease of operation and optical performance: it's resolving power,contrast and CHROMATIC CORRECTION are so good that it's full aperture is at the same time the optimum f-stop."

From this you could deduce Leica were well aware of the quality of this design and could perhaps quite easily given it the designation "APO TELE-ELMAR f4 " but because of what I see as then a more conservative approach to marketing they chose not to paint the best "characteristics" of some lenses on their lense barrels.

In my opinion this lens is no lesser a performer to my 180 Apo Telyt. I have not compared the Tele Elmar to the newer 135 Apo-M however comparison would be interesting.

Use of the 135 Tele-Elmar is definitely an advantage with 0.91 and 0.85 mag. finders.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Sheridan

"Apochromatic" does have a very particular meaning and Leica used it first on the 180 Telyt. I think that they would have said the 135mm was apochromatic (rather than just having good chromatic correction) in their marketing blurb if it had been true, even if they had not made a big deal about the appellation in marketing the lens. Erwin P, love him or hate him, says that the lens is very good but is not apochromatic. In fact he says that the current Apo-Telyt 135mm is as good at f3.5 as the TE is at 5.6. It might be "almost" apochromatic, but that is not the same thing. Also, as good as the TE is, I do see a difference between it and my 180 Telyt. Also, as a case in point, Leica frequently make the claim that there is "no need to stop the lens down", but in fact the performance of both the 180mm Telyt and 135 TE does improve when stopped down to f5.6. So although in picture making terms maybe it does not really matter: the lenses still improve when stopped down. So Leica fib a little bit too.

The point I am saying is that I do notice a difference between Leica Apo and non-Apo lenses. Non-Apo can be really superb, but the Apos are something special in my experience. I am not talking bokeh of course.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Robin. I do take your point here in comparing the Apo 180 and Tele Elmar.In practice,both lenses give superb results and quite luminous color.The bokeh of the "humble" Tele Elmar is superb. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Robin, thanks for your asnwer. I guess you are right. there is just something there, in the few negatives I took with the T-E, which I still miss. maybe I will just try to find a chip one one day. thanks again.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), May 20, 2002.

I would definitely not sell the APO for a T-E except to recapture a lot of money. My experience is they are so close as to be virtually indistinguishable. In my case, I kept my older T-E, so if I sell the APO I'll just pocket the proceeds. Me selling a late-version T-E for the APO was stupid, but not as stupid as me buying the late-version in the first place when I already had the early version. There's a point where horsetrading Leica lenses is tantamount to throwing money away.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

Just pick up a T-E for $162.49 this morning on Ebay to replace my Apo-Telyt-M 3.4/135 The seller still has another one.

-- chi cheung (chic@intergate.bc.ca), May 20, 2002.

Nice price. When I was looking for one a number of years ago, best I could do was more then $400. Ended up buying a 135/4 Elmar (lens just preceding the Tele-Elmar). But then hardly use it, either....

-- adam g. lang (aglang@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

I do a lot of close-up work.

I use my Tele-Elmar lens head on bellow II and the quality throughout the entire distance range (from infinity to closest with ratio close to 1:1) is absolutely stunning! To me it is my "standard" marco lens. I used it more often than my black 65mm macro-elmar.

-- Joe Lee (joelee@1388.com), May 22, 2002.