Popularity/value of 135/2.8 Elmarit-M (E55)

Every so often I wonder what my clean 2nd version of the 135/2.8 M

would get if put up for sale. I love it's imaging and focus accuracy

but have been tempted every so often by the 135/4 Tele-Elmar for

it's compactness. I guess it really comes down to how desirable is

this lens given it's size compared to the slower more compact

brothers. Does this lens have a following among some Leica fans or

has the popularity of the 135 wanned from years ago to make a lens

of this size unpopular among Leica fans? Curiously, when I check the

Leica price guide for this lens, nothing is linked for ebay items

like other the more popular 135/3.4 or 135/4. I don't want to put

the lens up for sale just to fish for price and don't want to be in

a position to buy a 135/4 and then force myself to sell the 135/2.8

for less than $500.

Alan,

 

Assume you are talking about the lens and its goggles: I have been watching the auction site for sales of these lenses. Most are going in the $350-400 USD range.

 

Mike

Alan, I paid considerably more than $500 for a mint 2nd version 135/2.8 M, complete with caps, case and original packaging. However, most examples I saw advertised in clean but not mint condition were offered at less than $500. You might check eBay directly for recent sales.

 

I really wanted the 135/3.4 or the 135/4, which I used to own and which was the sharpest lens I had ever used until I bought a 90AA. But, as I have a .58 viewfinder, which has no framelines for 135, I had to get the Elmarit or use an external viewfinder, which I didn't want to do.

 

I'm glad I bought the Elmarit. As you must know (since you own one), it's a great lens for portraiture. Used with the viewfinder magnifier, it gives a bigger-than-lifesize image in the viewfinder. It might not be as sharp wide open or across the field as the 135/4 Tele-Elmar or the Apo 135/3.4, but at medium apertures the central performance of the lens leaves little to be desired. I have shot it, closed down to f/11, side-by-side with the 90AA and would need a magnifying glass to see the difference in 8x10 headshots. However, if you're shooting landscapes at wider apertures, your needs and results might be different.

 

I don't worry about its compactness, or lack thereof, because 135 is a focal length I use only when I'm specifically planning to. I don't carry it around as part of a walk-around kit, and I never did even when I had the smaller, lighter Tele-Elmar.

 

In general, the popularity of the 135 certainly seems to have waned. It probably makes more sense to use this focal length on an SLR, if you already own one. I, however, wanted to stay in the M system.

 

I've rambled on with my opinion, but I think only you can tell which, if any, of these lenses is right for you. You might have to buy the alternatives to try them; however, in today's market, you're unlikely to lose any money by buying Leica lenses and re-selling the ones you decide not to keep.

Alan, this is just a general suggestion, but I would recommend that you try to buy "any other" 135 you might be interested in, use both, compare both and after a few months or even years, you should have found out which on is "better". Then sell the one you like least. The big deal is that you can usually sell the latter for about the same price you paid in the first place. Or even keep both!

I've used all the 135's on all my M's -- not a great focal length for an M rangefinder IMHO.

Having owned both the Tele-Elmar and the Elmarit, the trade-offs are not just purely optical. The Elmarit is much bigger and heavier and can be less stowable in your bag. On the other hand, using the Tele-Elmar on anything other than an M3 (or a .85 M6, which didn't exist when I owned the Tele-Elmar) is (or was for me) a little frustrating due to the finder (de)magnification. It's a balancing game -- personal choices. For myself, I gave up using lenses longer than 90mm on the M bodies and use SLRs for that now.

I started with the 135/2.8 Elmarit-M but didn't use it much because of its weight... moved on to the Tele-Elmar, used it more and liked it but still found it a bit large and heavy so I got the Apo-Telyt... found out that despite its wonderful compactness and the 1.25 magnifier I still don't use it enough to justify the expense... so now I'm turning towards the Elmar - as light as the Apo-Telyt, probably more than good enough for me optically, and a bargain by comparison.

 

Sigh...!

i don't use the 135mm range very mich on my M6TTL so I got myself the cheapest 135mm hektor and it serves my purpose . the longest lens I find useful is my 75mm Summilux since it uses the 50mm frame. Anything longet than that I go SLR.

Several months ago I bought an excellent condition Tele-Elmar (with filters) from a forum member for $195 delivered. This has got to be the best Leica lens value out there, even if the lens may only be used sporadically. I use a .85 M6 TTL and also have the 1.25 magnifier. Works great.

Alan, I don't think this is a particularly popular lens among Leica M users. I like mine (which is the first version) because despite its weight and size, it's a useful focal length when you need it. Besides, the goggles let you focus and compose better than other 135mm lenses. Once, a while ago, I played with a Tele-Elmar in a store and didn't like it's being so slow and the small focusing frame my M6TTL 0.72 gives me. In sum, with its pros and cons, you're better off keeping it.

<p>

BTW, check out the <a href="http://www.keh.com">KEH's Used Gear Calculator</a> to find out how much this lens may cost. I've seen them offered on eBay for a bit less than $500.

I use the R version of the 135/2.8. I'm fairly critical, and I see nothing wrong with it at any aperture for practical photography, hand-held or on a tripod. I also own the 135 f/4 Tele-elmar. Great lens, even better than the f/2.8--it's practically an APO--but it sees limited use because of the very small finder frames. If you don't mind the bulk, I would stay with the one you have.

 

Then again--come to think of it--wanna trade?

Thanks guys. I agree with many of you regarding the frameline issue of the 135/4. I don't know why Leica cheated us on the 135 mm frames in all models following the M3. If they kept the perfect M3 style framing regardless of the magnification, it would be a tremendous help with the framing of this focal length with the non-goggled 135's. The long focus throw and goggles guarantees perfect focus with the Elmarit M in almost any light. I've never had a soft image with this lens. When I briefly owned the 135/3.4, I found it's shorter focus throw, speed and perfect optical correction less forgiving of minor focusing errors resulting in a few trashed images. The 135/4 I owned years ago was less problematic in this respect owing to it's slower speed and slightly longer focus throw. I think for now, I let any GAS attacks pass on another 135 unless I have the good fortune of finding a really nice 135/4 Tele-Elmar for under $200 like David's.

I find the 135mm 3.4 an absolutely stupendous lens and I always enjoy the results from it. However, I do not think that on a 0.72x Leica one can use it in quite the same way as one uses a 135mm on a reflex. For example, the small size of the frame makes visualisation harder, no question, but this can be solved or ameliorated by using a dedicated 135mm finder - the Leica one is excellent. One also has to take particular care focussing the lens - so it is not all that suitable for rapid focussing situations, or indeed for fast focussing at the minimum focus and full aperture. Hence the lens is slow to use - this means it is best for slower, deliberate photography. I tend to use it for landscapes (mainly at infinity) or simply when I must have the extra reach, but it is a wonderful lens and it feels really good on the camera to me. I replaced my earlier 135/4 Tele Elmar with the Apo because I liked the built-in hood (although later Elmars have a built-in hood too) and the half stop of extra speed is always useful, particularly with a telephoto. The performance of the Tele-Elmar is really very good and only a tiny bit behind the APO.

>>I don't think this is a particularly popular lens among Leica M users<<

 

Actually, I don't think it's particularly popular for *any* 35mm camera.

 

Charles' suggestion above (buy a cheap Hektor, or maybe an Elmar) makes a lot of sense if, like me, you usually use longer lenses on an SLR but for some reason need to go with just an M.

The only compelling reason I find for the 135 besides the usual travel use is to photograph shy animals or people that you can't get very close to and it's the longest rf coupled telephoto for a Leica M. Also the resolution of the later Leica M 135mm f/2.8/3.4/4 designs and improved film emulsions easily allows scanning and enlargement that rival 180/200 mm lenses of more modest design.

for the longer lens, many M shooters prefer to go w/ Leica slr cameras; Bill Allard, and Sam Abell come to mind.

I have both 135's (the goggled and the pre apo).The pre apo is a surprisingly sharp and well corrected lens.But it's f4 at its widest.If you are doing portraiture you can work around it somehow but 'candid shots' that would've been nicer with shallow focus(bokeh?)

are not within easy framing.

Enter the 2.8 bespectacled one... .This is where the lens shines.You can put people or objects in a rapidly blurring context that spares the framing eye from worrying too much for capturing less than alluring texture of background.

I bought it cheaply.Some $200.00(nobody bid higher from an 'antique'

outfit!)and the goggles were somewhat foggy.Engaged as I'm prone to ,in cleaning them myself it took me to reach at the top of my brain power to come up with a way to get it to focus with something close enough to precision once the cleaning of the parts was done.It helped that I had shot a roll with the dirty goggles to come up with

something close to precleaning accuracy.It was not easy.It took several attempts through carefully planned shots with recorded settings to finally figure out satisfying accuracy.It was worth it!

Even though my black.85m6ttl looks like some contraption designed to inflict pain and fear with it(in an attractive sort of way)I do carry it while on the candid hunt.It does compel curiosity,even in kids who relate it to some transformer toy or something alike.The only problem I had with it is that the darned lens cap was made out of stamped aluminum and no felt inside for snug fit.It disappeared one day and I'm still looking for a replacement.If anyone out there is willing to part with their 'extras' or dropsies please email me.

It's about 63mm inside diameter.The lens is of Canadian origin.

Since this thread has been resurrected, I'll add a recent data point.

 

I purchased a late (E55) 135 Elmarit-M in very clean condition from Adorama on eBay for $305 in April 2007. I like it very much - yes, it's much bigger and heavier than most RF lenses, but as someone more used to SLRs it's no concern. Sharp and reasonably contrasty.