135 mm.: which way to go?

[geo2]

I am planning to purchase a 135 mm.. I am being offered a mint

Tele-Elmar-M 135/4, last model with built-in hood, mint, boxed,

for 950 Euros; and an Apo-Telyt-M 135/3,4, mint, boxed, for 1.350

Euros.

I can afford any of the two, so my point is about which one

delivers the nicest images. I have no problem in using a tripod

when I want the best possible sharpness, and I use high quality

slides (Velvia 50, Velvia 100, E100G... and lately I bought a

supply of Kodachrome again, from abroad since it is no more

available here in Italy).

I read a few posts here, and I understand that the AT is not

sharper than the TE; plus, if this is true and one considers the

bokeh item, it could turn out that the TE definitely IS the best

lens... but Erwin tells a much different story...

Any suggestions to clean up a confused mind?

[mr._kenny]

Giorgio,

I have the 135 TE-- first version, first year. my example was owned for many years by another forum member, and it was cleaned a few years ago by leica here in the usa. the 135mm TE is a great lens, a real classic for the M camera. <br />

i purchased mine for US$230, without hood. the excellent reversing hood can easily be found used for US$50-90, depending on condition. let's say you're into both lens and hood for US$325 after shipping -- less than �300 after VAT/shipping.<br />

i have shot the lens wide open on a tripod and handheld at 1/500 second, and it's astonishingly sharp at infinity. when i bring the slides into my computer, my 2800 dpi scanner cannot resolve everything on the negative. keep this in mind, because leica/leitz changed the optical design of the TE 35 years later, which in my mind speaks to the quality of the older lenses.<br />

it's your money, and surely the 135mm apo-t is a fine lens, magnificent even -- i have not shot one to compare, and honestly, i don't need to, especially at 4x the price. i would get the 135mm TE and an excellent arca-swiss b1 with a carbon fiber lightweight tripod with the difference in prices. either that or a great vacation!<br />

ciao,

<br />

Kenny

[paul_neuthaler]

Giorgio, The Tele-Elmar is wonderful and, IMO, the way to go. But a Mint example can be bought in the US for app. $400-$450. Do not pay 950 Euros, or $1,200 US app. -- way too high.

[sal dimarco]

Giorgio, The absolute best performing 135mm lens is the f/3.4 APO-Telyt-M. I think you could do better on the price. Happy Snaps, Sal

[gerry_szarek]

I own the 135 F4 it is super sharp. FYI there is a review of both lenses somewhere on the web (try nemeth's site) the short version is the 135 F4 holds it own without any trouble, yes the 3.4 is slightly (emphasis on slightly) sharper in certain situations. You can ignore the stuff written by Erwin.

 

I do hope you have one of those magnifiers for your camera because even at 0.72 (on my M4-P) close focusing is trying, however doable.

 

BTW you should be able to pick up the lens, caps, shade and a filter for around $500US in excellent condition.

 

Gerry

[geo2]

First of all, thanks to everybody.

 

Paul, I mean a mint, never used, boxed sample of the last model

of Tele-Elmar-M, the one with the built in lens hood. Are you sure

it can be bought for 450 USD? I saw another (used) sample here

in Italy, and they were asking 1,000 EUR for it. 950 EUR for a

new sample seemed a good price to me!

 

Sal, I read confused news about the best performing 135. After

all, even if one reads the contrast % values from the MTF charts

in Erwin's book, one gets very close results for TE and AT. I did

the job, and here are the results, both lenses at f/5,6, TE and AT

respectively:

 

40 lps, center: TE 72% and AT 75%;

@ 10 mm. (middle field): 68 and 72;

@ 20 mm. (corners): 52 and 56;

 

20 lps, center: 88 and 89;

@10 mm.: 86 and 88;

@ 20 mm.: 80 and 82.

 

There are differences, but they seem small enough to disregard.

One also has to consider that mr. Puts tested "... an older

version #2206407" TE: performance of a more recent sample is

supposed at least not to be lower. I think that the opinions of

someone that owned and used both lenses could solve this

matter; maybe you did?

 

By the way, what should be a good price for a mint used AT? I

read the new list prices for Italy just yesterday, and a new one is

well over 2,000.00 EUR!

[john_brewton]

Giorgio, yes Paul is sure because he sold me his at that price and it is MINT!

In boca a lupo, John

[tom_johnston2]

i'm using an older tele-elmar and have been amazed by it's performance, especially wide open- it is a fantastic lens.

[stephen_w.]

Either is WAY too much for a 135. If you're not bothered using a tripod, moving to medium format can be done cheaper than either of your stated alternatives.

 

BTW, what do you need a box for?

[geo2]

Stephen W.,

 

of course, I prefer to use 35 mm. equipment: it lets me carry a

camera body plus four lenses (21/4 CV, 35/2, 50/2, 90/2,8) in my

old, tiny Lowe Pro Mini Mag. Anyhow, even if one was willing to

carry bigger and heavier gear, I doubt that he could get a good

medium format camera + telephoto lens setup with 18° angle of

view for cheaper than that.

 

On the other hand, I must be missing something. The prices I

stated do not look high when compared to other prices I see

here in Italy. By sure, one should not consider the EUR/USD

change: prices here did not go down while the change moved

from circa 0.80 to today's circa 1.22. I guess one should

compare European prices to US prices considering like if the

change was 1:1.

[dan flanders]

I obtained one of the earlier TEs and compared its performance to my older lenses. I have had the old Elmar 135/4.0 for years to use on the Visoflex and had picked up a Cannon 135/3.5 which I used on my screw mounts. Quite frankly, for my purposes, the Cannon equals or surpasses either of the Leica 135s. For that reason, I traded the TE and though I might be sacrificing some resolution, I am perfectly happy with the Cannon. There are at least two of the Cannons currently on eBay at what I would consider potentially bargain prices. OTOH, if you can afford it there is no reason you should not indulge yourself, however it would appear to me that the difference between the two under consideration is insignificant so �pay your lira and take your choice!� I might mention that I also have the old 135 Elmarit with goggles. It is a great lens, but so bulky I hardly ever use it escept for studio situations. <p>

American prices on items such as this are not driven by the USD/Euro exchange rate. They reflect the availability of the item in the local market place and the demand for it the particular time. Ultimately the US price will inch its way up to reflect the exchange rate but even then local availability will largely determine the going price.

[stephen_w.]

I agree with Harry. I had the Tele-Elmar and have the Canon (one "N") LTM 135, 3.5 and the results are very comparable, especially handheld. I hate the internal framelines for 135 (0.72), so use a separate VF. BTW, I paid $105 for the lens, including an original Leitz adaptor. $1000 buys a lot of film and processing.

[frank_bunnik]

950 euro's seems like very much money. I purchased a few lenses from a Dutch dealer (I live in the Netherlands) who also sells internationaly. Have a look at www.collectcamera.com. He has a 1969 135 TE (box included) for 315 euro's (traces of use but clear glass). He also has a 2.8 135mm in very good condition for 430 euro's. It safes you a lot of money.

[geo2]

Frank Bunnik,

 

I had a look at www.collectcamera.com and I saw the lenses you

mentioned. Thanks a lot for this useful information. The dealer

seems to me to ask for correct prices, and I wish I could see

similar prices here in Italy. I noticed the Elmarit-M 21/2,8 asph.,

chrome, boxed and described as "new in the box" for which is

asked 1,705 Euros. My usual dealer asked 2,000 Euros for a

similar item, but the lens showed very clear signs of use such

as dirty engravings. So, even if it was undamaged, it could in no

way be considered as "new in the box". I noticed the prices

www.collectcamera.com asks for the 135s: an early Tele Elmar

in "C" conditions goes for 315 Euros, an Elmar in "A" conditions

for 375 Euros, a "mint" one for 470 Euros. A "mint" Elmarit, no

boxes, goes for 700 Euros. Having inspected such prices, I think

that 950 Euros for a new unused, boxed, recent, latest model

Tele-Elmar does not seem that much from a "commercial" or

"pleasure to use" (if one appreciates the "new" feel) point of view.

Of course, I agree with the point that an older, heavily used lens

with perfect glass can be had for much less and deliver exactly

the same results, and this would probably be the best move

from a "best sharpness for the money" point of view; but the

(good) prices at www.collectcamera.com does not say that the

askings I got here for those mint 135s are so scandalous.

 

Well, I understand I could look like I was trying to sell it to you...

maybe I am actually trying to sell it to me...

[joel_matherson]

It should be pointed out that the last Tele-Elmar (the 46mm filter version with built in hood) fetches twice what the older 39mm tele-elmar 135's fetch, so this must be taken into account when looking at this lens. The last 46mm version isnt all that common as it was only available for a short time. I would haggle on price with both first and see what comes out the best value. If the AT is 50% more expensive I would probably go with the TE since there isnt a great jump in perfomance as with some other newer versions that Leica has brought out.

[bruce_fichelson]

I came across a gorgeous chrome 135mm Elmarit f2.8 in screwmount in mint condition, inside and out. Thinking it would be perfect on my IIIg body.

Very very expensive compared to other 135s and even to its all black incarnation. Any opinions?

Thanks in advance.<div></div>

[bruce_fichelson]

The photograph of the Elmarit is of the 135 tele elmar not the Elmarit obviously. However, aside from my error, I would say that the Tele Elmar 135 is fantastic and very very close to the absurdly expensive aspheric version. Get the TE!

 

Now, any opinions on the chrome 90mm f2.8 Elmarit in chrome? Is it worth the premium being asked for it because it's chrome? Price of $1,200.<div></div>

[stephen_w.]

I bought and sold one like that for $350, IIRC.