canon 135/3.5 rf vs Leitz Elmarit 135/4?

perry_cas · October 26, 2013

I have been shopping lately for the latter, but just came across some good prices on the former. Was wondering if this is a line of thought that should be followed? Or how do the canons compare to the Elmarit? I am not finding much info on them and know very little of early rf canons.

JDMvW · October 26, 2013

I don't have the Canon 135mm f/3,5, but I do have the Canon 50mm f/1,8 and the 35mm f/2,8 and they are both superb. They are both Gaussian inspired as the bulk of Canon's RF lenses were, of course.

The 135mm f/3,5 is part of a different line of evolution as detailed by Deschin in his book on Canon RFs:

I have some Contax RF-mount Soviet 85mm and 135mm lenses that are often improved copies of pre-War German lenses. You could do far worse optically than trying these in their LTM version. They're no longer dirt cheap in LTM, but they are still much cheaper than Canon or Leica lenses. (Be sure you get the RF LTM lenses not the longer flange distance Zenit versions for the SLRs)

charlie lemay · October 26, 2013

For what it's worth, a friend of mine was in Wetzlar when the Leica engineers were testing the Canon 135 lens and he said they swore

when they saw the test results and said the lens because it was that good. I have a Canon 135mm f3.5 last version and find the results

equal to the the Leitz Tee-elmarit in black and white, but I like the size and build quality of the Leitz lens better. Also I shoot in whole

stops using the zone system anyway, so the half stop extra isn't an advantage for me. They are both great lenses.

perry_cas · October 26, 2013

Thanks JDM, out of curiosity which soviet con tax rf's Brands? I have tried a few 135's at this point, i have a mirror less camera a fuji xpro 1. It can be hard to focus with some lenses manually. I do know someone using the Elmarit and can focus it, but i am curious about the canon having a vague memory of its being of great quality.

JDMvW · October 26, 2013

which soviet contax rf's Brands?

</blockquote>

Jupiters (Sonnar and Biogon origins) and the Helios (Biotar-derived). There are more exotic ones too that are a lot harder to find and much pricier by Soviet standards, anyway. For LTM 50mm± I reported on Jupiter-8 5cm f/2 Industar-61 52mm f/2.8 Industar-26M 5cm f/2.8 in LTM on a Canon VL2 at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00c0si

For the Contax-RF mount, I've done a bunch of reports including http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00bxJy where there is a list of the more common Soviet Kiev (= Contax) mount lenses...

SCL · October 26, 2013

I've had both, the Tele-Elmarit from 1969-2012, and bought the Canon a couple of weeks ago. Although I don't have direct comparison shots because I sold the TE before I bought the Canon, I find it difficult to ascertain quality differences in the photos between the two lenses. I agree with Charlie about the build quality, although the Canon is quite close to the TE in this category as well, and considerably less expensive. My only concern would be servicing if required down the road...and in this case I think Leica wins. The other area Leica may have an advantage, is if you have a number of Leica lenses which take E39 size filters and already own them, the TE takes E39 filters, whereas the Canon takes 48mm filters.

JDMvW · October 26, 2013

Dante Stella also has some discussion of Canon lenses on Leica bodies at

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html

I can't resist posting some lens p o r n.

Here is my "collective" of Soviet Kiev-mount lenses. the LTM versions of most of these would look the same. There has been some debate over the years about whether the screw-mount and the flange distances are exactly right for Leicas, sensu strictu. Dante Stella also has discussion of this at

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

I do know that my Soviet lenses work extremely well on my LTM Canon VL2 (see link above)<div></div>

rgerraty · October 26, 2013

Impressive collection, and enjoyed your pun on collective. But enjoyed your deployment of sensu strictu even more.

james_elwing · October 27, 2013

Bit confused about what is being discussed. There is a 135 Elmarit f2.8 with goggles and a 135 Tele Elmar f4 and a 90 f2.8 Tele Elmarit.

The first 2, I have, older versions, and both are good lenses. The TE f4 outperforms and is nicely contrasty. All the Leica 135's are either bulky, heavy or both.

My Canon 135 f3.5 and my Russian 135 f4, while cosmetically & optically clean, each performs in a fairly ordinary manner, but I suspect RF focus might be slightly off. I can't imagine either providing much more than a giggle from a Leica technician. They would each be maybe 50 years old, so who knows their individual histories of use.

I wanted the Russian to be better than it is because it is shorter and weighs nothing, is therefore very pocketable. Maybe I should fool around with a bit of spacing shim between mount and lens head?

SCL · October 27, 2013

Thanks James - I meant the 135 f/4 Tele Elmar; I did own the 90 Tele Elmarit for a year or two way back when, and it was a good lens to take hiking due to its small size factor.

perry_cas · October 27, 2013

I am at fault here James, its the Lietz Wetzlar Elmar 135/ F4 (1960-65) that I am really talking about - not the tele.

james_elwing · October 28, 2013

Just wanted to clarify.

The f4 Elmar is very sharp and is the lightest of the Leitz 135's. Apart from the fairly rare screw thread version, the M version is not specially popular. I don't know what it fetches price wise. It is optically superior to the 4.5 Hektor 135. That was my first 135 and then very satisfactory. (Since I got M9, I keep checking focus and resolution. My Elmar and Canon are both out on the RF, so I must have bumped the Elmar cam.)

My point is that you need to check focus before purchase, as otherwise it is a cost.

Robin Smith · October 28, 2013

135mm Elmar is a nice lens, but is not a patch resolution-wise compared to the Tele-Elmar (f4) and the Apo -Telyt 135s (f3.4), but better than the Hektor (f4.5). I suspect that it and the Canon are much of a muchness. I enjoyed my 135 Elmar when I had it, but might find it limiting on digital.

perry_cas · October 29, 2013

James i am assuming the focus issue isn't going to affect me as i am using it on a mirror less.

Now i know Ken Rockwell enjoys a 'mixed' rep but he claims the Elmar wasn't much improved on by the tele and the Apo telyt, but i am a novice in this area an know next to nothing about these lenses having never even handled one - let alone owned one. I have seen the Elmar selling form 150 (Buy now) to realistically, 200+

From what i can pick up it seems that you might be right tho and the canon and the elmar don't have a lot separating them. The M mount would have been nice to maintain instead of having to have another adapter tho as I have a 90mm Leitz Rokkor, but for the price the Canon looks attractive.

james_elwing · October 29, 2013

Perry, my Elmar focusing issue is just my problem, not a problem with the Elmar as a lens type. It did focus perfectly almost 30 years ago when I got it. I must have knocked the lens cam through carelessness in recent years & will, at some point, have it fixed.

With reflex focusing, it is still just fine, optically as new. Those prices you mention seem very reasonable, as long as coatings are good.

Robin Smith · October 30, 2013

Elmar wasn't much improved on by the tele and the Apo telyt

</blockquote>

Such nonsense. KR does write a lot of it, unfortunately.

Robert_Lai · November 3, 2013

I have the Leitz Elmar 135 f/4 in LTM, as well as the Tele-Elmar 135 f/4, and Apo-Telyt 135 f/3.4

As it turned out, the 135 f/4 lenses focus perfectly wide open at minimum focus, but the Apo-Telyt back focused by 2-3cm. DAG has finally adjusted the focus on the Apo-Telyt. Wide open, the Elmar has lower contrast overall, which makes the photographs from it distinguishable. The corners are less sharp. When stopped down, it produces sharp and contrasty images.

The TE and Apo-Telyt are harder to tell apart. Both exhibit sharpness to almost the extreme corners, and moderate to high contrast wide open. Stop down for depth of field control. I would say that the Apo-Telyt is a bit sharper overall, especially stopped down, but then the cost of the lens is multiples of the cost of the TE.

If you're using LTM cameras, then the Elmar 135 f/4 in LTM is a very good lens. For an M camera, I think the TE would be the best value for the money. The Apo-Telyt should be considered only if you use this focal length extensively, and money is no object. In that case, you can drive it to various shooting locations in your Ferrari.

frederick_muller · November 8, 2013

Consider cost. It's not that hard to make a quality-performance 135mm lens in this speed range. The Canon provides excellent results for the money. Consider also how often you'll use a 135mm on a rangefinder.

james_elwing · November 8, 2013

I think Robert has it. Best value Elmar for screw, Tele Elmar for Bayonet. Your use of 135 focal length is a personality issue, but when you use it you want good image quality.

Sign In

canon 135/3.5 rf vs Leitz Elmarit 135/4?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in