Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4 (M39/LTM)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
just get a small M39 extension tube Wink


M39 register is 28,8mm and Paxette is 44mm. No ready made tube available (15,2 mm) and too much effort and cost to make a special one.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
For Paxette lenses, use an M42 adapter and an M42-M39 ring. I had four of them and to be honest, they were all really poor, by far the worst German lenses I have ever seen. Mine were made by Staeble and a Roeschlein 45mm. The Russian Jupiters in M39 are far superior and much more common.


Unfortunately this doesn't work. Paxette register distance is 44mm and M42 is 45,5mm, i.e. M42 adapter is 1,5mm too big. You can easily see the result on my 35mm lens test, where I made a picture from my ISCO 35mm Paxette lens with such a combination. That's really not recommendable.

Be assured that I can live without Paxette lenses. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
it worked for me... of course I had to shave the tube a bit, but not very much. And are you sure about the register? I don't think Paxette is 44mm.. it's very close to M42 so Ian could be right about this.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Every really cheap adapter I've bought for my Lumix has been too 'thin' so lenses focus way, way back past infinity. I wonder if an L39/M42 collar on such a cheap M42 adapter might give a useful working range, maybe not quite back to infinity but enough to useful for many of the sorts of pictures we all post on the forum.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Tedat wrote:
just get a small M39 extension tube Wink


M39 register is 28,8mm and Paxette is 44mm. No ready made tube available (15,2 mm) and too much effort and cost to make a special one.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
For Paxette lenses, use an M42 adapter and an M42-M39 ring. I had four of them and to be honest, they were all really poor, by far the worst German lenses I have ever seen. Mine were made by Staeble and a Roeschlein 45mm. The Russian Jupiters in M39 are far superior and much more common.


Unfortunately this doesn't work. Paxette register distance is 44mm and M42 is 45,5mm, i.e. M42 adapter is 1,5mm too big. You can easily see the result on my 35mm lens test, where I made a picture from my ISCO 35mm Paxette lens with such a combination. That's really not recommendable.

Be assured that I can live without Paxette lenses. Wink


Oh but it does work if one is using a mirrorless camera as the M42 adapters are adjustable, you just loosen the grub screws holding the inner piece in place and push it back until infinity is reached then tighten the screws up again.

M42 adapters are made this way because the actual back focus of M42 lenses varies a hell of a lot.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Oh but it does work if one is using a mirrorless camera as the M42 adapters are adjustable, you just loosen the grub screws holding the inner piece in place and push it back until infinity is reached then tighten the screws up again.

M42 adapters are made this way because the actual back focus of M42 lenses varies a hell of a lot.


I see your point and checked my M42 adapters. However, non of them could be made smaller by the needed 1.5 mm. The other direction would work, i.e. to increase the register distance a little bit. I've checked all of my mirrorless ones: MFT, NEX and Leica M.
But I don't care anymore as I already stated. I have more than enough other lenses which are fitting without troubles. In the specific focus length 9 others. Wink

So the best solution for me is to avoid Paxette lenses in future and get rid of the one I have. As simple as that.
Finally, most of the ISCO and Schneider lenses which I consider as the better ones would be also available in real M42 which should avoid such troubles.

Thank you anyway for the hint.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sum up:
    - Original adapter works best
    - 44mm is correct register distance
    - The Roeschlein-Kreuznach is smaller than the Tamron and the Fujita (I have them all)
    - There is a few bad lenses made for Braun Paxette
    - There is also a few quite nice one made


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For would-be Paxette lens users, this eBay item might be heaven-sent (although at a spectacular price Very Happy )
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/leica-LTM-fit-L39-m39-39mm-fit-extension-tube-15-2mm-long-paxette-adapter-/371341086294?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item5675a74e56


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
For would-be Paxette lens users, this eBay item might be heaven-sent (although at a spectacular price Very Happy )
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/leica-LTM-fit-L39-m39-39mm-fit-extension-tube-15-2mm-long-paxette-adapter-/371341086294?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item5675a74e56


I've already seen this before. However, the text is mentioning that it is somehow incomplete !?
So you might not get what is shown on the picture; and of course, the price is inferior.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, that`s the one I use Very Happy
I had three of them, but sold two.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A quick sample of a size comp. of Tamron, Fujita, Roeschlein-Kreuznach and the Canon 100mm with correct register distance (E-mount).
The Canon gets slightly shorter when adding the m39Braun - m39 RF adapter to the Roeschlein-Kreuznach, but it is still impressive small to be a 135mm lens Wink

IQ wise, the Canon 100mm is a winner.



PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:

IQ wise, the Canon 100mm is a winner.


That's interesting. When I started to collect RF lenses I've read a lot in different RF-forums also about the old Canon lenses and was under the impression that the sample variation is rather big, somehow comparable to the Russian lenses. Quite often a bad quality was reported. As the Canon ones have never been really cheap in Europe (like in the U.S. or in Japan some years ago) I did never try one of these lenses. It seemed to be a bit risky to get a bad one. In essence, their reputation was not really good, at least for my understanding.
So I preferred to try my luck with the Russian ones and must say that I was the lucky one because I never received a bad copy so far. Some of them are more than usable and the price was really a bargain as I've imported them all from Russia myself.
However, as the good times are over now to find some reasonable copies, this issue is history for me anyway. I would never spend as much for a Canon lens as for e.g. a Leica one and the prices are already comparable in Europe (I am not talking about new Leica lenses but at comparable age). Import from the US or Japan seems also too expensive nowadays due to the additional cost and tax. So my "premium" RF lenses are primarily from Voigtlaender (all M39 version 1) and Leica and additionally I have a set of the Russian ones and some exotic RF lenses for little money. That fulfills my needs anyway.
Nevertheless, whats your general experience with the Canon RF lenses compared to the other ones? I've seen you have quite a couple of them.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My canon 100/3.5 has a touch of haze and still it's crazy sharp. This was one of my first RF lenses, and somewhere here is a post I made when I first bought it for the Nex-5. I paid about 140USD. My jaw dropped when I first used the lens:


DSC04064 by unoh7, on Flickr

above the lens on the Nex-5, below on M9:


L1010172 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
My canon 100/3.5 has a touch of haze and still it's crazy sharp. This was one of my first RF lenses, and somewhere here is a post I made when I first bought it for the Nex-5. I paid about 140USD. My jaw dropped when I first used the lens:


Seems to be OK and not bad at all for a 140 $ lens. Though, nowadays such lenses are offered for 300 to 500 Euros here in Europe, depending on condition and not even a Leica lens in 90mm of comparable age is that expensive here. I've spent not even 300 Euros for my Elmarit 90mm/F2.8 including original shade and caps in excellent optical condition and only minor signs of use which I consider not expensive for Europe and I bought it from the famous Leicashop.com AKA Westlicht in Vienna with full guarantee and free shipping (next day delivery). Wink

As I stated, the prices are or have been at least somehow different in the US and in Europe. Even your price would easily end up in apprx. 250 Euros incl. shipping and taxes for me at my own full risk without any guarantee and 2 to 3 weeks shipping time. Additionally the reputation of those Canon lenses here was rather comparable to the Russian ones (which are not really bad either). Therefore I went for Leica instead. Maybe at your price my decision would have been different. Smile

It's finally all about the market. Those Canon lenses are rather rare in Europe and Leica lenses you get everywhere as people used more German than Japanese RF cameras in Europe. At that time the German camera industry was still rather healthy. As simple as that.

I do hope that my last sentences are not considered to be political and forbidden here. Confused


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas's observations on Canon lenses surprise - and puzzle - me. I've never previously heard anyone seriously down-grade them to the level of Russian stuff.

I have several Canon rangefinder lenses right now, as well as some older SLR ones, and have owned and borrowed quite a few more in the past. Apart from the odd ones that had been abused in some way, every single one of them has been optically and mechanically first class. Few, if any, Russian lenses will actually couple properly with a Leica rangefinder, which is something of a crippling drawback and results from a design incompatibility. My experiences with Russian lenses on a mirrorless camera, where such problems don't matter, lead me to believe that even the early Canon Serenars from the late 1940s and early 1950s perform better optically than those made later in Soviet Russia and are mechanically far, far better.

But, my experience may be atypical and my knowledge is certainly far from all-encompassing, so I'm more than happy to learn more.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Thomas's observations on Canon lenses surprise - and puzzle - me. I've never previously heard anyone seriously down-grade them to the level of Russian stuff.

But, my experience may be atypical and my knowledge is certainly far from all-encompassing, so I'm more than happy to learn more.


Stephen,

Don't understand me wrong. I never had a Canon lens in my life. I am only quoting here what I have read in some other forums when I started to built up my RF lens collection after the purchase of my Ricoh GXR-M. Before that time I just had some Zorkies and related lenses which I then also happily used on the Ricoh.
It is clear (at least for me) that the mainly German forums have somehow downgraded everything which was not at least "made in Germany". I know that I have to see that also in this context. Maybe that was not obvious for you. However, it was nevertheless influencing my decision whether I should invest in rather rare, unknown and relatively expensive Canon lenses or to stay on the safe side with the Leica ones for the longer focal lenghts. I was never convinced that Canon per se is bad as I didn't have bad experience with my Russian RF lenses or the other Japanese SLR lenses mainly from Pentax and Minolta at that time either. For the shorter focal lengths I went for the more reasonable Voigtlaenders which had also a rather good reputation in the German community although they have been produced in Japan and not in Germany. Maybe because of the German name (Actually Mr. Voigtlaender was Austrian Smile but immigrated to Germany because of the glass industry there). The shorter Leica lenses have been far too expensive for me at least at that time. Presently I don't have any need for additional RF lenses and in the meantime since the introduction of the Sony A7 cameras also the Canon lenses are nowadays far too expensive here as previously explained. So most probably I will never become a "Canoneer" Wink
I do hope that explains what I meant with the "not so good reputation" before. Obviously there are some good Canon RF lenses available but for my taste a little bit too expensive as I have no need anyway.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have only owned two Canon RF lenses, both of them 135s, one an earlier silver Serenar, the other a later black one styled like the FL lenses.

Both are good lenses, but neither is better than a Russian Jupiter-11 4/135 of similar vintage.

I have a load of 1950s Russian Kiev RF glass and a few 1960s ones too; I also have a few Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax and the difference in optical quality between the Russian copies and Zeiss originals is pretty small. I would say my 1960s J-3 1.5/50 is every bit as sharp as my Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 and my 1957 J-11 4/135 is very close in performance to my 1957 Zeiss Opton Sonnar 4/135, the major difference being the slightly better coating on the Opton lens, giving it slightly more microcontrast, but that is very much nitpicking. My 1955 Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135 is probably slightly sharper than both however.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have only owned two Canon RF lenses, both of them 135s, one an earlier silver Serenar, the other a later black one styled like the FL lenses.

Both are good lenses, but neither is better than a Russian Jupiter-11 4/135 of similar vintage.

I have a load of 1950s Russian Kiev RF glass and a few 1960s ones too; I also have a few Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax and the difference in optical quality between the Russian copies and Zeiss originals is pretty small. I would say my 1960s J-3 1.5/50 is every bit as sharp as my Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 and my 1957 J-11 4/135 is very close in performance to my 1957 Zeiss Opton Sonnar 4/135, the major difference being the slightly better coating on the Opton lens, giving it slightly more microcontrast, but that is very much nitpicking. My 1955 Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135 is probably slightly sharper than both however.


I have a similar experience with my Russian lenses. However, I haven't done a direct comparison with my Jupiter 3 and the Voigtlaender Nokton 50mm/F1.5 or the Jupiter 8 and the Leica Summicron 50mm/F2 up to now. Would also be quite interesting.
What I've seen in my big 35mm lens test recently, the two Russian copies have definitely been among the better ones. Especially the Jupiter 12 is a fantastic lens and the Mir 37mm for Zenit was not bad either.

However, in 135mm, where I have also a Carl Zeiss Triotar from 1938 I can definitely say that the Zeiss lens is below the Russian Jupiter 11 LTM version. I didn't check the Jupiter 11 in Zenit version yet. It's a different lens design.

Though, I never had the chance to test them against any Canon lenses, as explained before.

Last edited by tb_a on Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Nordentro wrote:

IQ wise, the Canon 100mm is a winner.

Nevertheless, whats your general experience with the Canon RF lenses compared to the other ones? I've seen you have quite a couple of them.


Canon LTM lenses are very good in general and among the best none Leica RF lenses you can get together with the Nikkors from the postwar period Wink

I have bought most of them from Japan, GB and the US. Just one can get you addicted really fast Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've been through a variety of Russian lenses, including some from the 50s with seemingly german builds but nothing came close to this for build, and it's a fantastic non-tele sonar I think.


Canon RF 85 f/1.9 by unoh7, Many Blades!
Now the later 50's have a simple build but it makes them easy enough to service. Same is true for the "Black Lenses" which are also made well. Both Nikon and Canon in the 50s I think were out building the russians, but the Russian glass was good and great zeiss formulas, so a good J3 or 9 looks great.

The market is flooded with beat up Russian glass, so it is not easy to get great copies, I think.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In order to come back to the original topic I can show you another possibility to use the Elmar 135mm.
Finally I've received all the necessary adapters also from China to use the lens head of the Elmar as originally designed also as a macro lens. Luckily I have also a Nikon PB-4 bellows besides my Minolta ones as to and from Nikon the necessary adapters to and from Leica M are cheaply available from Roxen/China. However, to make this happen I had also to get a original Leica lens adapter for the Elmar 135mm head to the Leica Visoflex macro focusing tube and of course the macro focusing tube at all. That was relatively easy to get 2nd hand and not so expensive too from the Leicashop in Vienna. So, in total 4 different pieces were necessary to make this happen. Wink

The dangerous looking outfit:



The first picture (clickable for larger view). This time with increased contrast for more dramatic look:



The stamens in the middle of the bloom are approximately 0.5 mm in diameter in original size.
This combination would allow even a slightly higher magnification.
All in all I must say that I am rather satisfied with the result. It's more than just usable.

BTW, the Leica macro focusing tube can also be used with my Elmarit 90mm/F2.8 lens head without adapter and the tube can also be used without bellows on Visoflex or the adapter Visoflex to Nikon F (still waiting for that from China) alone. The tube adapter for the Elmar 135mm is in M42 mount so it would take also any other M42 lens for macro purposes. All in all it's a rather versatile combination. Maybe I will also look for a Visoflex viewer which might be a useful addition for better focusing like in the old times (pure optical including optical magnification). Even that would be adaptable to other cameras too using a normal Leica M lens to NEX, Fuji or MFT adapter.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another one from today (Ricoh GXR-M).

Lens head on the Visoflex helicoid without bellows. Distance apprx. 1 m, diameter of bloom apprx. 45 mm.

2 Versions, 1st one with Ricoh GF-1 flash and 2nd one without but quite long exposure (1 second). Both at F8 on tripod with self timer.
Quite interesting to see the difference:
(Pictures clickable for larger view)



And a 100% crop of the first one:


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Sankyo Kohki Komura 135mm f/3.5 M42, lovely lens, small but heavy, built like a graceful tank. I've gone almost fully LTM, and have a Canon 135/3.5 on the way, but this lens is just too lovely to let go. Have a small M42-NEX helicoid on the way to use just with this lens.

Not sure the argument about the small M42 lenses being smaller/lighter holds up once you have to adapt them.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great pictures, Thomas!

I have a copy of the "old" Elmar 135/4 that I bought 7 years ago (here's an old post with some pictures).

At that time, I did a side-by-side comparison with other Leica-M 135mm lenses. I found the Elmar just as good optically if not better than the the Tele-Elmar 135/4. In fact, the Tele-Elmar, being a telephoto lens, had a tiny bit more CA than the Elmar, which is just a long focal lens without any diverging rear group. The Elmar also features a Lanthanum element for a better correction of the chromatism. Both lenses (Elmar and Tele-Elmar) were visibly superior to the 135/2.8 Elmarit. Of course, the best lens of the bunch was the Apo Telyt 135/3.4, but not by a very large margin (especially at F/8 and beyond where the old Elmar is just as good).

And I discovered that the Elmar also has other strong points in its favor:
- It's the lightest Leitz 135mm lens at 405g (yeah, it's even lighter than the old Hektor 135/4.5!);
- it's also the cheapest Leitz 135mm lens (easy to get for less than $200);
- its optical block unscrews from the focusing tube, allowing to mount in on a bellows for macro (where it excells).

So I just bought the Elmar and I have been living with it happily ever after...

Here's the naked truth, in the form of FTM curves:


Credit: "Leica M-Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets" by Erwin Puts


Credit: "Leica M-Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets" by Erwin Puts


Credit: "Leica M-Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets" by Erwin Puts

And if you prefer it in a more "flourished" style, there is also a (good) review by Ken Rockwell (I know what you're gonna say, but this one is a good review).

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
Great pictures, Thomas!

And I discovered that the Elmar also has other strong points in its favor:
- It's the lightest Leitz 135mm lens at 405g (yeah, it's even lighter than the old Hektor 135/4.5!);
- it's also the cheapest Leitz 135mm lens (easy to get for less than $200);
- its optical block unscrews from the focusing tube, allowing to mount in on a bellows for macro (where it excells).



Thank you!

Well, the removable lens head is definitely the best feature because I can even use it as macro lens head for my (non-Leica) FF camera on bellows. That's a rather unique feature which I haven't seen from any other manufacturer so far. The Visoflex helicoid isn't bad either.
My rare LTM version is hardly to get for that price in excellent condition nowadays. Wink The Leica-M version is easier available. Currently there are 2 available at the Leicashop in Vienna but no LTM version at all.
I like it more as I can use it also easily with my DSLR cameras for closer objects (even without bellows). Leica-M to DSLR adapters are not really available contrary to M39 adapters. The easiest way to adopt is by adding a M42 thread and use it with an M42 adapter.
So it's definitely my most versatile 135mm lens and most probably my best as well.

However, most of the information was already known for me. Normally I check BEFORE I buy a lens.Smile
I didn't look on Put's charts up to now. That's also new for me. Wink

Cheers,


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:

Not sure the argument about the small M42 lenses being smaller/lighter holds up once you have to adapt them.


Well, one of the smallest M42 lenses, the Takumar 135/3.5 incl. adapter is apprx. the same size of my Elmar 135/4 but slightly bigger in diameter. So the Elmar is still the overall smaller and of course the better lens.
Even the combination of Takumar and LTM adapter is 5 gr. heavier than the Elmar in LTM (just checked on the kitchen scale). Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3