I am still very intriguied by the 135 APO lens. I have played with one in several stores and spoken to friends about it, but I have never come across anyone that has owned one. My M6ttl is a .72, so I am not overly concerned about frame lines. Is there any reason that this lens (the newest/latest version) seems to be a bit of a dark horse? Beyond that, has anyone owned one and then either loved it or never used it and sold it?

Thanks again.

-- JackWheeler (Jwheel1@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002

Answers

There's some question in my mind whether this focal length is useful at all for the type of pictures usually shot with RF cameras. I've always owned a 135, but rarely used it. All you have to do is look at the HUGE number of used Leica 135s on dealers shelves to know that a lot of people must feel the same way.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

I use a 135/4.5 ocassionally. I mostly use wide angles and seldom use the longer focal lengths. When I do, the 135 works just fine.

The quality difference between the 135/3.4 APO and the 135/4 T- E is minimal. So buy the T-E and experiment before dropping the big bucks on the APO. Heck the T-E is so good you may not even bother with the APO.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 21, 2002.

I also user the 135/4.5, which is ok in terms of picture quality. I rather prefer the 90mm range, since I also do not have a 135 viewfinder frame in my M2. An external finder is helpful, but is also getting used to with the .72 viewfinder magnification.
As John said, there is no big difference between the 135/3.4 and the 135/4 but in the price, so the latter may be the better option.
But if you don't have a 90, I'd suggest to try one first before buying a 135. I find the 90 on a M equal to a 135 on a SLR; the 135 is usable with a .72 finder, but the frames a really very small.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), May 21, 2002.

Jack: I purchased a 135mm lens a few years ago and can count the number of times I have used it. The last time it was out of the bag was spring of last year. I used it to photograph a boat race on the Schuylkill River then back into the bag it went. I also have a 90mm that has also been rarely used. My prefered lenses are the 35 and 50. For me they are ideal for use with a rangefinder camera. Good luck.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), May 21, 2002.

Thank you all.

I suppose that I should try and borrow one for a few weeks before I decide on a purchase.

My concern seems to be that the lens will "remain in the bag". I tend to think that is often the case.

-- JackWheeler (Jwheel1@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

90mm is the longest I would go with a M camera, above that it best to go SLR

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 21, 2002.

Jack,

This is ex post facto perhaps, but I've got to tell you that I have owned a google eyes 135/2.8 for some 18 years. I love the thing though I seldom use it. I also have a Canon screw mount 135/3.5. You can get it for a fraction of the Leica lens, and if you use it occationally it might just be your lens.

I use my 135s in public lectures when you need a long lens and a quiet shutter. I load up the camera with 1600 film and generally shook hand held. I think the M 135 is a great lens for outdoor and indoor concerts, theatre, courtrooms and the like. When you need distance and a quiet shutter. For all around use you are better off with an SLR and a telephoto zoom.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), May 21, 2002.

Used with my M3, the 135mm TE is good for sports, car races ,etc. I use it with both eyes open and have gotten good results as far as framing and "decisive moment" images. I don't think it is as easy to use with a .72 mag camera however. It is extremely high quality-very sharp and contrasty.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 21, 2002.

I find the comments about the 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt vs. the 135/4 Tele- Elmarit interesting. Unfortunately, I don't own the lenses, but the reports that I read rate the AT as a significantly better lens than the TE, perhaps the best lens in the Leica M line. Are they crazy?

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 21, 2002.

Once more I'll repeat this: I own an early-model 135/4 T-E and a 135/3.4APO-Telyt that I bought after selling a late-model 135/4 T-E. I also own a late-model 135/4.5 Hektor in LTM, and used to own a 135/4 Elmar-M. All of these lenses are extremely sharp and although there are improvements (but not shocking ones) between the Hektor, Elmar and T-E (all of which are priced in the same wide ballpark today, except the late-model T-E), the APO-Telyt is so close to the T- E that the price differential is way out of proportion.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2002.

I used the 135mm Elmarit 2.8 with the "goggles" for many years. I needed the focal length, the lens speed, the quietness of the leica, and (re: goggles) I needed to be able to see what I was photographing. But the experience was never satisfying and I subsequently switched to Nikon SLRs in sound blimps for that particular application (orchestra/ theater).

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), May 21, 2002.

I once owned the APO 135. Used it for portraits occasionally when I didn't want to lug around an SLR AND an M system. Brutally sharp. In need of a Softar 1 or 2, especially when shooting women. I now have the /2.8 which is bit more suited to the subject matter. And the shallower DOF doesn't hurt either. Mounted on an 0.85 it's also a tad easier to focus on the eyes. But it is BIG...yet not as big as another SLR body and 135 to fit it.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 21, 2002.

Jack; here is an earlier thread this month on 135mm lensesThe 135mm F3.5 Nikkor LTM of mine is fairly sharp wide open (at least mine is); BUT is a heavy beast! Using it for any sports is "totally wrong" were the several emails sent to me...One stated I needed a Canon EOS..Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 21, 2002.

A Canon EOS? Now were talking "everyone knows you're shooting" BIG, and " spine compressing" HEAVY. One of my shoulders is lower than the othe because of EOS cameras and the "Jethro" like lenses. My doctor prescribed Leica relief. Hmmm, I wonder if Blue Cross will cover that perscription?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 21, 2002.

I still think Leica should make a telescope ocular to convert M lenses to monoculars. + or - 3 diopters. Thie would give 10.8x magnification with 135mm lenses. 7.2x with a 90mm. 6x with 75mm. They might even make a type of stand that would hold the lens upside down, making a neat macroscope.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Frank, Leica should hire you.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 22, 2002.

Jack,

occasionally I use a Tele-Elmar 135/4 (latest Version before APO) for years. This lens is really excellent. Even at f4 it is great ... but the APO 135 is better at f3.4. I took some pics on a grey and rainy day with both lenses and full aperture. With a 4x magnifier I saw the difference. Contrast of the APO version was visibly higher. Stopped down photos became indistinguishable. IMO the APO-Telyt is nice to have but it is not a necessity. The Tele-Elmar is so good - even at full aperture - that it will fulfil all your needs for a reasonable price. Best wishes

-- Frank Thoma (Thoma2811@aol.com), May 22, 2002.

There is an old saying: "The M is a wide-angle camera anyhow, 'eh?"

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 22, 2002.