135mm Tele-Elmar f/4 vs. 135mm APO Telyt f/3.4

[j._mose]

Hello,

 

I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $$$ to invest in a

135mm APO Telyt. A previously owned 135mm Tele-Elmar f/4 can be

obtained in the $400 - $500 range in near mint condition (1/3 of the

APO Telyt).

 

I shoot 90% black and white, 9% color negative, 1% chrome.

Enlargements are 85% - 8 X 10; 14% - 11 X 14; 1% - 16 X 20.

I do use slow speed films a lot, along with a tripod.

 

My other focal lengths are 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. I mainly use

wide angles. The 135mm would be used less than 5% of the photos.

 

I do appreciate outstanding lens quality but wonder if I would really

notice much difference with the kind of shooting that I typically do?

 

Thanks for your time!

 

J. P. Mose

[chip l.]

You may want to look at this:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/M34-135.html

 

IMO the limited shooting of the 135/4 that I have, this lens is just great. And they are a real bargin also.

 

Happy snaps...

 

Chip

[mikal_grass]

JP

 

I have an old 135/4.0 and I believe it to be an elmar. I don't have the lens in front of me but I know the word tele does not appear on the lens. I use it with the 1.25x magnifier on either a .72 or .85 M6. The lens is a bit softer than my 50/1.4 'lux and even with the magnifier it can be difficult to focus. For the money (mine cost a bit over $200 including shipping) it is a great lens. I have no regrets.

[andrew_schank]

Unless you have money to burn and have to have the latest formula, the Tele Elmar is your best bet for the money. Even if you were using it 50% of the time. That lens is extremely sharp even wide open, and has that "APO" look to the images, and indeed it has been said it is an APO lens without being labeled as such. Nice out of foucs highlights as well.<div></div>

[jay_.]

Based upon the above-mentioned "test report" (the 1st last and only time I ever did this on someone else's word alone) I am the current owner of a 135/3.4 APO-Telyt, and the only difference between it and the 135/4 Tele-Elmar I sold is the $1000 hole in my bank account.

 

It has to be the #1 upgrade scam in all Leicadom. Here for everyone's benefit are (IMVHO)nominations for others, based on my personal experience shooting slide film (mostly Velvia)and 90% with some kind of solid support like a table tripod or full-size tripod:

 

50/2-M 11817 (1969-79) vs 11819/11826 (current formula). Supposedly the newer formula has better performance "in the field". If it's so, it's so small as to be totally insignificant.

 

35/2-M 3rd version (1973-1979) vs 4th version "pre-ASPH". I defy anyone to pick out identical images made with these two lenses, and the 3rd-gen is much better constructed albeit a tad heavier (with Leica lenses of similar speed and focal length, a new lighter version can only mean something's missing or turned plastic).

 

21/2.8 Elmarit-M vs ASPH. I owned the ASPH first, sold it and bought a non-ASPH and a 21/4 C/V with the proceeds. There's a little improvement at f/2.8 with the ASPH but by f/4 all three of these lenses are indentical.

 

90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit "Fat" vs "Thin". The "fat" is not plagued by rear element woes (though frankly that's way overblown about the "Thin" T-E also--I've seen hundred of them in perfect condition, never a bad one, but I've only heard about it anecdotally), the "Thin" is of course smaller and lighter. Optically it's a dead heat.

[Troll]

There are always complaints that Leica doesn't have any money to make needed changes in it's real bread-and-butter products. Why the hell would they would they waste it replacing this fine (but little used) lens just to give 1/2 stop more speed and questionable improved acuity? D'uh!

[henry_ting2]

I think you answered your own question, JP.

 

Also Jay, I think you sum it up quite nicely. Without all these psuedo numbers represent in the test reports, one would be hard-pressed to notice any differences between the last and current version of Leica lens. And even if there are improvements, any minute variables between the individual lens' tolerances and between the photographers encounterings in the real world, will negate all that.

[chip l.]

Bill,

 

I think that Leica went with the 135/3.4 more for economy of the lineup than for anything else. The 135 is a focal length that is not a hot seller. So they eliminated the 135/2.8 and the 135/4 with something that went in the middle. And according to Puts improved on an already excellent lens design.

 

Happy snaps

 

Chip

[kevin_baker___heidelberg_]

I bought a mint condition 135/4 for $500. It looked newer than lenses I have bought over the counter from a dealer.

 

Needless to say, it is excellent and i can't see a reason to buy the newer lens, except the built-in hood. But that built-in hood is a curse on my Noctilux (latest model) and I really hate it.

 

BTW, my lens is the first version before the new external design. Optically, they are identical...

[george_b1]

I had the older f 2.8 and sold it. I haven't tried the f 4.0, but my grandchildren *did* give me the 3.4 for an advanced-age birthday present. We shoot 'chromes 99.5% of the time (Velvia and Provia). I've used the lens maybe three or four times in the last year.

 

IMHO, to get the best from any 135, you'll need a sturdy tripod, a 1.25 magnifier and an external brightline viewfinder. I've taken some stunning photos using these three necessary impediments (stunning in resolution, contrast, color, fringing, flare suppression, etc. - - but please don't ask me if the subjects and compositions were worth much, as they weren't!)

 

I'd treat *any* 135 as a luxury - - and be prepared to do some very deliberate shooting if you do acquire one.

[eliot]

Jay and others. Erwin's response to your comments would be that the differences are there, but the user must be prepared to improve his technique to be able to see them (or similar words to that effect). Nevertheless, the 135/4.0 TE is regarded as having near APO correction, so the improvement in the new lens is minimal, mostly being the 1/2 stop faster maximum aperture. I have the 135 TE and it is a superb lens. I have no desire to get the new one.

[angus_ngtg]

I owned this lens for a short time and without a doubt it is a very sharp lens and an ergonomic gem. Very light, quite portable. The problem I couldn't get past was the 135mm frame line, even with the 1.5 magnifier. I ended up getting the 90mm f2 APO, it's heavier but IMHO more user friendly on the M cameras. For me that made the cost of the 135 APO prohibitive. Judging by you intended use it seems to me that the cost is quite high and from what users on this forum say the F4 version sounds like a great lens at a great price.

 

TG

[jay_.]

<<Jay and others. Erwin's response to your comments would be that the differences are there, but the user must be prepared to improve his technique to be able to see them (or similar words to that effect). >>

 

Which is why I pointed out that I use Velvia and a tripod. What would Erwin have me do to improve my technique, use Tech-Pan (maybe I want to shoot color?)and epoxy the camera to a limestone wall? Or perhaps he might say it's my eyes. If it were, I'd be out of my dental practice in a hurry and in court a lot! It takes an immense amount of arrogance to come out and tell people your standards are higher than all of theirs--but such arrogance is found wherever a guru speaks in any profession ;>)

[eliot]

Jay. I'm not disagreeing. I was being somewhat facetious, but here is the exact quote from Erwin: "The Apo-Telyt is a truly superb lens. It demands users who are willing and able to exploit to the fullest their technique and do not hesitate to improve on their expertise to match the optical qualities of the APO-Telyt." It's the kind of thing he has said in other cases, too.

 

IMO, when Leica came out with the 135/4 TE (which was introduced in 1965), they set the bar so high, that it is very difficult to get much more out of a 135 lens.

[ben_crabtree]

I have owned both, sold the expensive one, bought a cheaper old one. Why? Because I rarely use it, and had too much money tied up in the 3.4. Besides, I believe there is very little (perhaps undetectable) difference in performance unless you need to shoot wide open.

[lacey_smith4]

I have the 4, but shot the 3.4. Did not keep the 3.4 due to expected infrequent use. However, I do find the 3.4 a remarkable lens-- and noticeably better, whereas I did not even find the goo-gaw 90 APO so much better than the 90 2.8, or the 35 2.0 asph profoundly better than the pre-asph (though they are, slightly, admittedly).

 

The latest of any Leica focal length has optical "superiority" (or, at least, a difference) from its immediate predecessor. Unequivocally, the 3.4 is a margin better than the 4.0, especially wide open-ish, and maybe even leading the league consisting of the 90 APO, 28 summicron, etc. But, quality must be used to be justified.

 

Though I have the 4.0, I am also aware that the "nearly the same quality" equivalence at the commonly shot f5.6-8, denies the important extra f-stop of shutter speed that f4.0 (non-equivalent quality) affords. If only depth of field were more forgiving...

 

Finally, the 4.0 I have is the 70's version, so I can remove the head for Viso use. I do think the later ones handled a bit better(optically the same, except for vintage, perhaps coating, etc.)

[al_kaplan1]

I got an f/4 way back in 1968, rarely used it except in short mount on my Visoflex II, but it's nice to own a 135 rangefinder coupled lens for when you need it. Last year I decided to dump my reflex system including my beloved 180/2.8. I traded my 135 Tele-Elmar for a like vintage 135/2.8 Elmarit and a hundred bucks. Not quite as sharp but it is 2.8 and I can get by without the 180 more easily.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Friends,

 

I have a Tele-Elmar f/4 and have nothing to say against it. It is a spelendid lens even at full aperture (by the way I'm still wondering why so many RF users stay shy from using a 135 mm lens).

 

Jay, I don't think Puts'attitude is as arrogant as you think. I believe the point in case is rather more general. Leica has produced sometimes since years (it depends on the focal length as the perfect correction of is easier or more difficult practically due to this factor and the intended maximum aperture) almost perfect lenses (it means their imperfections are hard or impossible to see in practical use).

 

Nowadays, with modern techniques of production and after the computer revolution, almost all lenses of a certain quality produced will bring more than acceptable results. We must all remember the human eye has its own limits after all... We are now reching the very limits beyond which any amelioration is unlikely to be seen. This goes for the optical performances, not for the rendition which is a completely subjective topic.

 

I think more and more new designs from Leica will challenge our ability to "see the difference". And this the point I have to disagree with Mr. Puts. I don't really see the advantage of being obliged to use a heavy tripod and very slow film with a small format rangefinder camera... If I had to resort to such an arrangement, i'd rather use my medium firmat camera with a result which will certainly be better in the end due to both a considerably reduced magnification for a given format of print and the more subtle rendition of the gray scale due to the more important number of silver crystals influenced for each part of the subject.

 

For me, A SFRF camera is mostly a hand held camera. Playing with it like if it was a view camera (devoid of movements by the way) is something I consider useless and boring.

 

This goes for the appreciation of the practical value of the new 135 mm f/3.4 Apo as for a certain number of "new" leica M lens designs...

 

Now back to the 135 mm question.

 

I have used both the "old" 135 mm produced by Leica in the M range.

 

The f/2.8 with bugeyes was less than perfect at full aperture, but was nevertheless a good lens. The f/4 is something hard to beat.

 

My guess is Leica has introduced this new lens, with very samll **practical** edge in performances for other reasons:

 

You will notice this lens was introduced more or less at the same time the first M6 0.85 was introduced...

 

I know by experience the modification of the finder magnification will cause problems using the 135 mm f/2.8. In my case, with the Hexar RF, the magnification was inferior to the 0.72 magnification for which the bugeyes magnification was calculated. So around the frame I saw a blurred black frame (the same should apply to an m 0.58). It doesn't prohibited the use of this lens, but rendered it not so comfortable. With a 0.85 magnification, I think it is likely the edges of the frame inside the bugeyes will be just seen as a limit or even already outside the field of vision.

 

So, the f/2.8 was discontinued... To have only f/4 as the maximum aperture of their one and only 135 mm would have been dammaging for Leica on the marketing side as most SLR lens range have at least an f/2.8 135 mm lens (with f/2 as a luxury alternative and f/3.5 as the poor man's lens).

 

I think this why Leica introduced an f/3.4 lens, with ameliorations in performances which might be hard to see but are there (to preserve their reputation) and as they had already decided to issue M bodies with different magnification, which can suit any of them.

 

On the other side, a new f/2.8 (and moreover an f/2) would probably have stretched a bit the rangefinder precision of even the 0.85 finder version without a bugeye arrangement.

 

Practically there is few difference between f/4 and f/3.4, but on the marketing side, the 3 (of 3.4) "sounds" better than a "4"...

 

As a side benefit, they were able to concentrate on the production of one lens instead of two...

 

For me, as long as you don't use a heavy tripod and real slow film, you'd probably never see the edge in performances of the new lens. As the 135mm f/4 is already a top notch lens, why bother buying an expensive lens, moreover when you'll have aplenty of second hand Tele-Elmars available for cheap in mnt conditions. I paid mine in A+++ condition the equivalent of $ 255... If you have the money for an Apo f/3.4, then better to spedn the rest on another lens don't youi think so ??

 

Friendly

 

François P. WEILL

[karl_heinz_strohmeier]

I've had the 135/f4 TE both E39 and E46 with buildin hood. Both are outstanding lenses even wide open and the latter has the better handling due to the apparture ring located nearer to the M-body.

 

Currently I use the 135 APO-Telyt and love them: The handling is great, the results (50 and 100 asa slides only) superb, the 1/2 stop more allows me to shoot with 1/250 instead of 1/125 for example and while the 135 TE's are somewhat soft beyond f/8 to f/22 the 135 APO-Telyt in this range is still what it is: An APO with the latest=newest optical formula. Enlarged with a leica slide projektor at 2x2 screensize I can clearly see the difference as you will at enlargements 11 X 14 or 16 X 20, as you stated.

 

Once again: The TE's are great performners at f/4 to f/8 with a very very good price-performance ratio (in Germany 500 to 700 Euro respectively 535 to 750 US$ at e**y) in the used-market vs. around 1100 Euro respectively 1180 US$ for the Apo version. So I highly recommend the APO because this is the best lens money can buy in the 135 mm range. Otherwise you may appreciate the value of approx. 125 rolls (approx. 500 Euro) of slide film...

 

Best regards, Karl-Heinz

[Robin Smith]

Well I have the TE, but if I had the money I would buy the current Apo, because 1) it is half a stop faster 2) it is as good at f3.4 as the TE as at f5.6. If you shoot the lens at 1/500 sec and use 100 or slower slide film then it is always good to have a faster lens, otherwise you have to revert to some kind of support which is not always convenient. Also most of my 135mm shooting on the M is at infinity or near infinity so depth of field issues are not such a big consideration - hence the lens is used at full aperture a lot. The Apo quality would also be useful for bringing out the minute detail in landscapes which is what I use my 135mm for almost exclusively. But I do agree with the others that the TE is much better value and the 135mm is not a natural focal length for the M. But if I felt it was worthwhile for me I would like the Apo very much. Much more really than the APO Summicron 90mm, which I feel does a less than stellar job on portraits which is a main use for a 90mm.