Leica R135/2.8, is it really not a superior lens?

[michael_fan1]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have just purchased the Leica pocket book by Laney and Puts and checked out the MTF for the Leica R135/2.8 Version II, surprisingly, I found the MTF of this lens is really good.<br>

It is not only better than Zeiss 135/2.8(C/Y), but the Zeiss 135/2(C/Y)! (According to the Zeiss site)<br>

I also compared the MTFs of Canon 135/2.8 and 135/2 (From photodo.com), it shows that the Leica is better than the Canon 135/2.8 and is very close to the 135/2 which has a weighted MTF of 4.5!<br>

Compared to the Leica 90/2.8 (Weighted MTF at 4.6), the 90/2.8 is a bit better.<br>

Do we underestimate this super lens by Dr. Walter Mandler?</p>

<p> </p>

[nee_sung]

<p>All Leica F2.8 lenses are superior; they are cheap because the smaller initial aperture makes it a lot cheaper to manufacture. Users assume these lenses are inferior because they are cheap. This is the best kept open secret in the Leica world.<br>

Leica has said it in their literature many times over the years: unless you need the larger aperture, buy the smaller aperture lens, because almost all the additional cost goes to making the larger aperture, NOT improving the quality.</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>Did you use the lens?</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>I have this lens. I'm very satisfied with its sharpness and the brilliance of its color rendition. Along with the 90 Elmarit and the 180 APO-Telyt, it's a reason to stay in the R system. OK I'll add the 60mm Elmarit to that list.</p>

[michael_fan1]

<p>Thanks all for your quick responses!<br>

Good comments by Nee Sung! Unlike other Japanese manufacturers, Leica lenses with smaller aperature do not mean they are inferior in quality!<br>

As this lens is considered 'not a lengendary Leica lens' and I would like to find out 'how terrible' it is, so I ran into the MTF published in my newly bought book by Puts.<br />Yes, actullay I just bought this lens no long ago (because it is cheap!) but I have not tried it out yet (I usually use my 80-200/4). Having seen some pictures taken by this lens in the web and its MTF, I will definitely to try it out soon!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Not all Leica lenses are of equal quality. I have no idea how yours checks out, but testing it is not hard. Or, you can visit Erwin Puts's website and his Leica lens compendium (downloadable) if you want to see a technical comparison with the other Leica lenses of similar focal length and different periods of production. </p>

[michael_fan1]

<p>Hi Arthur,<br>

Thanks for your recommendation.<br>

Yes, I have read various comments by different people including Erwin Puts.<br>

But I really want to go into some objective evidences (e.g. MTFs, I agree MTF may have its limitation) and critically appraise the comments made by others rather than just listen and believe to them.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I have a number of lenses that have really great qualities about them, and are among my favorite lenses, yet have mediocre (by comparison) MTF charts. I'm fully behind the school of using lenses without worrying about the MTF charts, though they <em>can </em>be useful in determining the most suitable apertures.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>I've had this lens for several years and have had some superb results with it. The lens was made to take pictures, not to produce MTF charts.<img src="C:\Documents and Settings\John\My Documents\My Pictures\Racoon 001" alt="" /></p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Sorry to have messed up the submission. </p>

<p>Leicaflex SL, 135mm Elmarit R, f11, Metz 45CT-1, Fujichrome Velvia 100, handheld grab shot (the coon did not stay around after the flash).</p>

[SCL]

<p>I had this lens for a couple of years and it produced good results with a slightly warm rendering, as I recall. I read MTF charts but take their conclusions with a grain of salt. I much prefer real world tests on specific bodies to ascertain which lenses deliver and which don't. Ultimately I sold the lens as I wasn't using it as much as I originally planned. Whomever bought it got a really sharp 135 (though not my favorite 135 which is a Canon FD 2.0) which handles very nicely. Since the 135 focal length isn't a hugely popular one any longer, you can often pick up some really good deals, such as the Leica R/2.8. BTW as its replacement on R gear, I often use the 135/4.0 tele-elmar lenshead with an M->R adapter and Visoflex 16464 focusing mount - makes it fully manual diaphragm, one stop dimmer in the viewfinder and sort of ugly looking, but WOW is it sharp.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Beware of comparing MTFs from different sources. You should only really compare Puts' MTFs with other Puts MTFs not to the Canon site or Photodo. Also remember some MTFs on the web are calculated rather than measured.</p>

<p>The 135mm is one of the original set of Leicaflex lenses. It is a good lens but not in the first league when compared to the APO R lenses or indeed the 90mm Elmarits. It is a very nice portrait lens.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention another thing, the 135mm is a "classical" focal length, meaning that it was designed AND perfected a long time ago, so all the research & development costs have been fully recovered, so all you're paying for is the manufacturing (+ markup, of course).<br>

And yet another thing, all chains along the manufacturing have been honed to utmost smoothness, so even QC is much cheaper (meaning far less rejects). Not only does that make the lens even cheaper, it means you're far less likely to get a lemon (not that I have ever heard of a Leica lemon).</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>It's a great lens -- you get every pound of value, esp. weight -- heavy, heavy. . .</p>

[jason]

<p>The same "story" of inferiority applies to 135mm f2.8M with goggles.. Use of the lens by a master photographer, in South Africa, made me aware of what can be done with Leica 35mm cameras. Till I'd seen the use of that lens, shot quickly, a head shot, available light, was to see the real superiority of Leica lenses..On a side note my 135mm Nikkor in "F" mount, another "poor" lens by repute but not in use! It is a close match for my Tele-Elmar 135mm f4. Because of the difficulty of exact rfdr focus in available light, when I shot a Church Choir, the Nikon-F and the 135mm f3.5 was the better lens. Maybe with the magnifier for the eye-piece and my M3, rather than M2 or M6 might have been better..The Tele-Elmar though is SHARP from f4. Using lenses not shooting tests is a much better entertainment.</p>