Would you buy a 135mm M lens or crop from a 90mm

This is to be used on a Leica M9.

 

I am thinking of less bulk for touring rather than finances as I already have 90mm and downwards and the 135 is pretty bulky.

<p>A Jupiter 11 lens is worth considering - I have owned a couple of examples, both were good and they are very light compared with a 2.8 Elmarit or even an f4 Elmar.</p>

Thanks David. My biggest concern is volume as I want as compact a setup as possible.

<p>I went with the 90mm.<br>

I had a 135 on trial at one time and found the frame lines just too small to really be of much use...the 90 frame lines were big enough to be useable and the resolution of the m9 is sufficient for cropping IMO.</p>

<p>I had both a 135 & 90 for a number of years. The 90 got used pretty frequently, the 135 only on special occasions, none of them touring. However...if you use a Visoflex at all (which I do), it is nice to have versions of each with the removable heads.</p>

<p>Even with the magnification provided by the googles was my 135/2.8 very hard to focus precisely - and in addition taking its size and weight into account, it stayed home more often than not. <br>

Throwing away half the pixels by cropping isn't the best idea either - so if you indeed need 135mm more than once in a blue moon, then getting a lens that fits your requirements is the better choice.</p>

<p>I always had a 135mm because all of my M's had the 135 frame, so I thought I would use it. In practice, I used them for probably 10-15% of shots - is that enough for you?</p>

<p>I would never have used the bulky 135/2.8: I only had the f4 and f3.4 variants - the Tele-Elmar and Apo-Telyts are stellar lenses if you actually get to use them. The old Elmar f4 135mm is long but very light and makes a great portrait lens (doesn't compare with the newer Tele-E or Apo resolution-wise though), so if you can find one for a good price I would get it. </p>

I am not sure I could recommend buying a Tele Elmar, but I would, and I was never tempted to sell mine. I use it for

maybe 1-2% of shots at the most. For a hike I take the 90 Elmarit M. For headshots from a seat in an auditorium I take

the Tele Elmar. I also bring it on my annual surf coast holiday. I can focus it successfully wide open on the M9, although

Leica makes no promises on that. I think you could crop from 90 but there'll always be that nagging dissatisfaction.....My use of

the 135 was significantly revived by getting a SHOOC external finder. Focus in the camera, frame in the SHOOC VF:

much nicer to work this way. I should use it more.

<p>Obviously this is a matter of personal taste, but I would stick with a 90mm and crop when necessary. I had a Tele-Elmar (great lens, not expensive by Leica standards) for a while but hardly ever used it. The small finder frame (and large relative size of the focus window) just isn't much fun. And 135mm may be the longest the M rangefinder allows, but it's really pushing it, and frankly it still isn't long enough! When I want more than 90, I find I want 180 or 200... and for that occasion the M is just the wrong camera. But it all depends on what you mean to do.</p>

<p>The older tele elmar is the least bulky, cheaper than it should be, but pretty dense & you need to have a lens hood. A focusing magnifier (is that 1.25X & 1.4X) might make it easier to get a substantial focusing frame, & you could use this with the 90 as well. The normal 90 frame is pretty small<br>

In photographic terms, I grew up with an M3, and the 135 frame seemed quite reasonable, as did the bulk of an f4 Elmar 135. Yes, the Russian SM 135 f4 is very light and pretty compact, but focusing accuracy isn't all that good, even if image quality is reasonable.</p>

<p> </p>

I prefer the Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 and not cropping. The focus on my Nikkors have been perfect on the M9. Many long telephoto's require some adjustment. The J-11 will most likely require adjustment to be used close-up and wide-open.

<p>

Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5, wide-open on the Leica M9.

<p>

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/members/brian/albums/nikkor-13-5cm-f3-5-ltm-leica-m9/423-l1007715.jpg"> <p>

 

This lens was $75.

<p>Completely agree about the SHOOC external finder. Wonderful. Unfortunately rather pricey too. The M9 should be able to focus any 135 f4 lens with little problem. The f3.4 APO was a compromise when Leica no longer continued the larger f2.8 and the f4 lenses, but wanted to offer M users a faster than f4 lens. The f3.4 can be focused with care on an M9 too - although Leica would probably say it would be easier with the 0.85 mag finders than the 0.72 (as were available once for the last film Leica Ms)</p>

<p>If you are left with enough mega-pixels after cropping, a 90mm can do the work of a 135mm. However, it is always best to not have to crop. Most important, if you will have much use for the narrower field of view, it should not be difficult to put up with the extra bulk and weight.</p>

<p>The Canon 135/4 is quite compact. The Leica 135/4 is a great lens--fairly light, relatively cheap and optically brilliant. If you cannot stand the extra weight of a 135mm lens, get closer with your 90mm. That way you don't have to crop. </p>

The Canon 135/4, which I have, was quickly replaced by the 135/3.5. The later Black version of this lens (also have) is much smaller and lighter. The 135/4 is a collectors piece, the 135/3.5 is much better.

<p>A good question. From what I have seen, you can certainly crop from a 90mm and still get sharp results. It depends, though. This is the second time I posted a link to this article within the past week or so:</p>

<p>http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-90mm-Summarit-M-f-25.html</p>

<p>Scroll to 'Roskilde Festival 2010' and see what you think about cropping on the M9. :-)</p>

<p>If you are traveling & concerned with weight try to find a used 90mm tele-elmarit second version (THIN model). Very light weight and small and much less than a new Summarit.</p>

<p>Love my old 135 Hektor, but a 90 will do just fine for your purposes. On the other other hand, the 135 Hektor is a great, undervalued lens and can be had very inexpensively.</p>

<p>Depending on viewfinder magnification, 135 is really the limit for Leica M focusing. I have a 135/2.8 with goggles and it works great but it's really too heavy to carry. I don't think you'll find a really satisfactory slight setup that you feel is worth using.</p>

<p>What's interesting is that the Tele-Elmars are selling for more than the Elmarits. The Canon 135/3.5 is cheaper still. I wonder if I should buy one... The good thing about the Elmarit is that you can use it on the M8, as it brings up the 90mm frame lines.</p>

<p>I have an Elmarit but haven't used it yet. Mind you I don't use the M8 much as it has a back-focus issue. An M9 is on the way, though.</p>

<p>The Tele Elmars are just a bit sharper and smaller and lighter. I don't notice much difference in price, but was surprised that the Elmarit didnt seem to go up in price when the M8 came in. I guess they are a bit heavy, and they don't like concrete, and the goggles are a bit odd, optically, & hard to keep clean.<br>

I think folks are just a bit spoiled by being able to carry a light-ish DSLR with one zoom that can do everything</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's interesting is that the Tele-Elmars are selling for more than the Elmarits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Elmarits have always been like this - their footprint has always been a bit away from the M comfort zone and they appear rather odd to younger users. I also think that the Tele-Elmar is probably the superior lens in terms of optical performance.</p>

All up, I would buy a 135. To me, cropping is for improving image shape rather than as a digital zoom, and the M9 has no pixels to spare if you want to preserve the option of big enlargements.

At the same time, I appreciate you get pretty much the same effect using a 90 on an M8 = 127mm, and many people choose 35 & 90 as a 2 lens combo when travelling light.

I don't know. I find the 135's a bit bulky. I wish Leica would come up with a very light & short 135. If C/Voigtlander came up with that kind of lens, I might be tempted.

<p>Speaking to a store just now their opinion was not to bother buying a 135mm as the focussing was difficult and possibly meant the M9 had to be matched to the lens by Leica. Problem being that the other lenses may then be thrown out and as most of them are Zeiss lenses Leica wouldn't do the job. This is from a store that has 135/2.8 and 135/4 lenses to sell!<br>

All in all it is probably easier to just stick with the 90mm and save the space and weight. It might be better to improve the 90mm quality instead - although I'm happy enough with the 90/4 I have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the M9 has no pixels to spare</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I beg to differ. :-) IMO, you can make 5' wide enlargements from the M9, based on my observations and those of others (see my links). But not so much at very high ISO settings.</p>