135mm Elmarit f2.8 M - Thoughts and Experience

[kbg32]

I am considering the purchase of one. Any thoughts and experience using this lens would be greatly

appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[skeeter]

aside from the size, which i'm sure will be a dealbreaker for some, i don't have any complaints about mine. the eyes make focusing and framing easy enough, and the results are quite sharp. i don't use mine a lot, but if you need that length and speed (you'll probably need a tripod) it is hard to beat.

[working camera]

Hi Keith

 

A lot of folks don't like the size and the VF tunnel vision the eyes give.

 

It a pretty good performer.

 

I must admit I don't use mine much, but it does come in handy every now and again.

 

C.

[skeeter]

one other thing, if you use an m-grip, you have to remove it to mount the lens, as the eyes won't clear it.

[alan_wilder1]

I've owned one for many years and recently sold it after aquiring a 135/4 TE at a very nice price. Sharpness is equal to 135/4 at the same apertures which is to say, outstanding. The 2nd version (E55) is the better optically and the goggles are better constucted. It does have a trace more chromatic abberation than the 135/4 but I seriously doubt it's enough to cause a problem with the new digital M8. Besides better focusing accuracy, framing and speed, it's the only 135 that provides viewfinder framing with the M2 and M8.

[jerry_lehrer]

Skeeter-- After mounting the lens, the M grip can be reinstalled.

 

This lens is the most underrated M lens ever! I use it a lot for pet

portraits. Also for children who might be intimidated by a closer camera position.

 

It is worth every penny of the price they usually go for.

[SCL]

I used one for about 3 years and then sold it earlier this year. It was a fine performer, but its weight defeated my "lightweight" M kit, and I found that I was increasingly grabbing the f4.0 instead. I've seen quite a number for sale on the big auction site in recent months. IMHO I think the goggles/size/weight vs a much smaller 135 on slr/dslrs are causing owners to jump ship at this focal length.

[jtdnyc]

I own a mint, late version 135/2.8 which I purchased from another forum member (Marc Williams). Compared to my 90AA, I find the results ever so slightly less contrasty but nonetheless excellent -- the 90AA sets a very high standard -- and also very favorable for portraiture. Though I only use it occasionally, I have every intention of keeping it for the times when I need it, esepecially since Leica has indicated it will be usable on the M8.

 

Its size and weight do challenge the M philosophy, but it's still smaller and lighter than an entire second camera system. If I had already owned a reflex system, though, I probably would have bought a 135 for it instead.

 

The long focus throw makes rapid work difficult. Perhaps the 135/3.4 has a shorter throw -- never having used one, I just don't know.

 

Then there is the issue of tunnel vision. While this is true to some extent, the goggles do offer a larger-than-lifesize view, even with the .58 camera viewfinder if you add the viewfinder magnifier. (With an M3 and the viewfinder magnifier, the resulting view would be about one and three-quarters times lifesize.) It's not the same as the usual M viewfinder experience, but still quite usable.

 

Bottom line: Get one if the M is your only camera systema and you need the reach; you won't be disappointed in its performance. But if you also have a reflex system, get a 135 for it instead; it would be easier in practical use.

[blowingsky]

I have an older 135 f4 elmar that is sharp with good contrast even at f4. It is much lighter than the goggled 2.8 and I suspect that the differences in quality of image are not great. They are very inexpensive on the bay.

[christopher_a._junker1]

I like the lens and continue to use it for racing where I can't get near the track. I don't mind the weight with the eyes. Hard to frame through the eyes, so I use the 135 bright line auxilary finder once I've focused. A bother, but it works. I have a 135 2.8 for the Leicaflex, but prefer the M version for my specialized use because of the ease of focusing and framing.

[SolaresLarrave]

Mine is a first-version, and finding filters for it ain't easy. In fact, thanks to Jerry Lehrer I got a nice Leica UV for my lens. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with it. Must admit I don't use it often, but when I do, it's been a satisfying experience. If you have a chance to buy one, have it checked too: the goggles can get out of line and DAG will fix them for $40 (at least, that's what he charged me for the job a year ago).

[Alex_Es]

Very useful for theater phoyography.

[jim_jeblee]

I like mine, picture quality is great. Can not change lenses mid roll if you are using the Motor-M which is a shame because it greatly helps w/ balance. If you need the reach for stage work it seems to work better than my 135 Elmarit-R on the R8. I now leave my SLR & 180mm lens home if I think I will only use it a little and take the 135 Elmarit-M because while a little larger than other M lenses it still beats taking a SLR system. I always take an M or two anyways so this works out best. Also if the light is not going to that great I take a monopod. These lenes are fairly cheap and easy to find give one a try. Good luck, Jim.

[dan flanders]

While it is rather heavy and clumsy (what 135 isn't?) my first version is my first chorice when I know I am going to be in a predominantly telephoto situation. The accuracy of the VF with the goggles is comforting and the optical quality is satisfactory for any of my needs. OTOH when I am carrying a full kit and want to be covered for any angle of view I prefer the 135/4.0 Elmar. I can't discern any significant difference in the images at equivalent apertures & shutter speeds. The only issue I have with it is that it is not convenient to stow and carry, but that is minor considering its utility.

[stuart_richardson]

You should search on the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar. There have been a few threads on it, and

pretty much everyone who owns one praises it universally. It is a superb lens, cheap, much

smaller and lighter, no fuss with goggles, and it is only a stop slower. Additionally, it is

generally considered to be a better performer (if you listen to Erwin Puts). I know that it is a

superb performer because mine has basically the same performance as my other lenses, like

the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 ASPH and so on. Mine only cost me 200 something dollars,

and it was the latest version (slightly beat up, but with perfect glass).

[mark_theken]

For indoor and low light situations such as a courtroom or a theatre, the 135 2.8 M is my preferred lens. Both the focus and framing are more accurate and the extra full stop allows the next faster shutter speed.

[svante.johansson]

I agree with most of what have been said. The Tele-Elmar is an outstanding lens, but I find the Elmarit easier to focus, and not very far behind in image quality. I am also surprised about how well balanced it is. I like the Elmarit for portraits with my M4. Make sure that the goggles are clear.<div></div>

[skeeter]

Skeeter-- After mounting the lens, the M grip can be reinstalled.

 

i know, it is just a little bit of a pain to have to remove it, but with a lens of that size the grip is *really* nice to have.

[simonpg]

The Tele-Elmar f4 is optically superb; unchanged in the "modern" barrel version Tele-Elmar-M and so good closing down hardly makes any visible difference to the outstanding image quality. Its successor the Apo-Telyt is considered one of Leica's finest ever lenses.

 

I am a 135mm focal length fan and opted for the Tele-Elmar's better perfromance over the f2.8 despite claims it is difficult to focus - yes it takes some extra care but I have never had an out of focus image from it yet on my M7. And the f4 is enormous value for money these days. I strongly suggest you consider it.

 

By the way Puts' gives a fine review of each 135mm version.

[jja]

Anyone other than Chris have success using any of these lenses for sports? I'm looking at

the 135/4 Tele-Elmar and I'm wondering if it can be used to shoot soccer from the sidelines.

[john_boyle3]

I have the R version which is the same optical formula and has provided excellent results. I also have the 135/4 Tele Elmar for my M2 and M4. As others have mentioned, it is a superb lens. For use with the M2 I just center the subject on the rangefinder patch and realize that the coverage is a bit more. Works just fine.

[simonpg]

Juan, sorry but IMHO the answer is "possibly / possibly not".

 

Depending upon what images you want to make at a football game, IMHO 135mm is potentially too short - only YOU can decide that.

 

Rangefinders are typically not ideal for sports due to focal length limits of these cameras and slower focusing of long lenses like the 135mm. BUT, probably many experienced rangefinder camera users happily / successfully use such gear at football - again only YOU can decide that.

 

Typically a 35mm SLR with a medium to long tele at least is preferred for football plus having something long ( say 300 to 400mm or even 500mm if you are a journo) on hand too. It can be a long way accross a pitch and down a ground. Since the advent of AF you rarely see a non-AF 35mm SLR at sports these days. BUT, that does not mean for a minute YOU could not happily shoot football without a long lens - again a personal preference / capability thing.

 

So, keep in mind that the 135mm f4 does need some more careful focusing to get the best image from it; football ideally needs quick responses from a shooter.

 

If you are considering the 135mm f4, you should have plans to use it for much more than football - portraits, compressed landscapes etc.. If you do, you will love it like I do.

 

I repeat it is a superb lens and one of the VERY BEST lica M lenses - a great choice at low cost for 135mm fans.

 

Finally, remember all aspects of shooting and selecting gear are PERSONAL - where commonly shooters say a 35mm SLR with long lenses are optimal for say football - there are no rules. The rangefinder concept allows a 135mm shooter (assuming he is happy with the image frame he gets with that angle of view) an excellent advantage - ability to see a much wider context of the game, movement and what will be coming into his lens' frame - SLRs cannot give you that. But, for me, I'd rather the other benefits of an SLR with AF as a trade-off. It's all about trade-offs.

 

Good luck.

[35mmdelux]

a great lens but a tad too heavy and cumberson for me. Sold it and will focus on my 90mm.

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I just bought such a lens.</p>