135 tele-elmar

[joel_matherson]

Has anyone had resonable success with the slower 135mm lenses on

cameras with limited baselength? (Such as CL/CLE's or Bessa R2's) Is

330 USD a fair price for a tele-elmar mint in its original box, in

that its not a popular focal length? I have heard a few good things

on the forum and was giving it some thought, but if ALL the photos

apart from infinity arent going to be in focus then it may not be

worth it. I already have a nikon zoom finder that I can use to cover

that focal length. What do you think, give it a go? Feel free to

offer general opinions on the lens and post pics if you like!

[al_kaplan1]

$330 is a good price if it includes hood and caps. It's a fantastic lens. In theory you should have no trouble using the CL rangefinder with the lens stopped down to f/8 or perhaps half a stop wider, just based on the math. In practice, unless you're just using the lens at close distances for portraits and such, you probably won't have a problem even at f/4. Depth of field should cover focussing errors if you were covering a football game or such.

[kevin_sarsfield]

I have used the 135mm focal length quite sucessfully on a Bessa R2 - stopped down to f5.6 or smaller,at 10 feet, or so - coupled with careful focussing (pick up a Nikon DG-2 magnifier...), it is fine. However, you must be sure that the lens/camera calibration matches. Allow for a bit of parallax in framing - but the combo works. Now, if you want tight head-shots at f/4, it might be a bit hit-or-miss, but bracket focussing might help there. Go for it!

 

Kevin Sarsfield

[joel_matherson]

Geez you guys are quick! Yes it does include the seperate hood and caps. I dont invisage I will be using it for portraits, I would probably put on a 90 instead for that. I was looking at 135 purely for its telephoto abilities where 90's just dont bring things close enough. Before anyone suggests yes i have SLR's for alot of telephoto stuff but was considering this lens to supliment a M mount system. I certainly wouldnt fork out the money for a current 3.4 APO but because this lens has been recomended for its quility in relation to its value for money may make it a worthy edition.

[dan flanders]

Much of the concern about accurate focusing of the 135 with the CL has proven groundless. It worked successfully with the old screw mount Leicas which had a RF base approximately the same as that of the CL. I have used it with all versions of the Leica with no reason to complain. Admittedly it is more readily adapted to the Visoflex, but that is another matter altogether. For their times, the Leitz 135s have all been excellent performers.

[Rob F.]

When the subject is far enough away, you can use the tele-Elmar wide open, at infinity, with no need for a rangefinder.

[stephen_w.]

Joel,

 

It's a fine lens at a fine price. I know that you know there are no 135 framelines in the VF. Why someone would pay $1500+ for the APO/ED/ASPH is chasing the magic bullet, IMHO.

 

Steve

[jay_.]

<<Why someone would pay $1500+ for the APO/ED/ASPH is chasing the magic bullet, IMHO.>>

 

Or buying Erwin's bullsh*t like a naive fool, which is what I did when I sold a perfectly great T-E (the last kind, with the E46 filter)and plunked down twice as much for the APO-Telyt, back when I first stumbled onto Erwin's website and thought he was on the up and up.

[gerry_szarek]

It should work fine, works fine on my Hexar RF. The only thing you will notice when close up is how finicky the range finder is about small errors.

 

Gerry

[Robin Smith]

Well I prefer the handling and size of the new Telyt and it is a half stop faster than my older T-E with the separate hood. It is also a better performer - I can see it immediately. It has the Leica APO look - razor sharpness as opposed to just excellent sharpness. I don't resent paying the extra $600 it cost me to buy it. Still the T-E is still a superb lens and probably more pleasing for flattering portraits although I don't really use my 135mm for this purpose.

[giselher_spitzer]

Dear Joel,

 

of course: infinite or clos to that is no discussion; metering with a meter also ;-))

 

i love the TE 135 since years, even adapted to Leica R. Some months ago i tested the M APO 135 - it is better than TE open, but: i stayed at the 40 year (!) old construction. Reasons: The TE 135 is usuable with VISOFLEX (even on LEICA CL) and the differences where for my eyes and on 100 ISO slide film just at open lens to be seen.

 

With the every-day high performance camera Leica CL (base lenght just 19mm plus) i use it with 5.6/8 at middle distance.

 

For close portaits with the small "Compact Leica" CL: use a good flash light with f:11 - You will be surprised about the life in Your pix!

 

Have fun!

Giselher

[red_buckner]

I've not found that 135mm gives me enough extra reach vis-a-vis 90mm to make it worthwhile. The focusing at 135mm is difficult on an M Leica unless you have a viewfinder magnifier. If you just happen to like the look of 135mm and can get past the focusing problems with an M Leica, I must admit that the lens performs superbly. That Leica glow, y'know.