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: Sat May 30, 2015 12:56 am    Post subject: Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4 (M39/LTM) Reply with quote
Today I've taken out my Elmar to make some sample pictures with my Ricoh GXR-M. Although I have it already some time I didn't use it so far as it is rather heavy (440 g /0.97 lb).

Information about the lens can be found here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_1:4_/_135mm

Picture taken fully open at F4. Original sun shade used. No PP. Free hand shot.



100% crop:



I am rather impressed about the sharpness of the lens. It is said that it is not the best one of the Leica 135mm lenses. My copy is from 1961 and was not expensive either. The 12 blades aperture leads to a quite pleasant bokeh. I think it's a keeper.
My old Zeiss Triotar 135mm/F4 cannot hold up against this lens. The question is how my old Nikkor-Q C 135mm/F3.5 or the Jupiter 11 in LTM will compare.
It's time to find it out.... Wink


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice to see someone with the 135/4 Elmar - please do show us some more shots.

I think our Leica-Friends over at Leica User Forum seldom if ever give these older lenses the credit that they're entitled to. Saying that it is not the best one of the Leica 135mm lenses really is "damning with faint praise". Away from the optical bench beloved of Erwin Puts (and for whose technical abilities I have great respect) it really is almost indistinguishable from its successor the 135/4 Tele Elmar - a lens for which praise is invariably fulsome. Having said that, my experience was back in the pre-digital era. Both lenses had the "vibrance" on Kodachrome slides that most other makers' lenses didn't have back then.

You ask how it compares with the old Nikkor 135/3.5 QC and the Jupiter 11 . . . I can't say anything about the Nikkor but I've had the J-11 in the recent past and must say between f5.6 f8 it was as sharp as any other 135 I've ever owned. But as a photographic tool it just didn't fit in with my photographic interests. Mechanically it was far, far from perfect and it didn't couple correctly to the rangefinder on my M8. I used it on the Lumix but I think the closest focus distance was something around 2 meters which meant using a short extension tube for the shots I wanted to make. I had the same lens in M42 which was also very sharp, focused a bit closer and was much better made, but for some reason I sold it . . .

Going back to the Elmar, the "technical reviews" say it isn't as good as the older 135/4.5 Hektor for close ups - to which I say "Put the lens head on a bellows on a bellows and try it out!"

You have a really nice lens there, Thomas - and also one which has climbed in value in recent times.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephen,

Thanks for your comment. Obviously we are the only ones who care about the old Leica lenses here. Wink

I will certainly try to use the lens head for macro. As the head has a native M42 standard mount it could even be used easily with some M42 extension tubes. In any case it's most flexible since (because of this) it's also SLR compatible and fits perfectly on my very nice tilt/shift Minolta bellows for use with all of my cameras. On the other hand the focusing tube of the Elmar could also be used for any M42 lens to act as a macro focusing tube. So it's actually a "multi purpose" lens.

At least in that respect the Leica RF system is somehow unique and extremely versatile. I've recently studied an old catalog of accessories and found also some quite strange and interesting tools. The problem is that most of it is relatively hard to find nowadays.

As soon as I will have more to show from this lens I'll add it to this thread. Promised. Wink


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Stephen,Thanks for your comment. Obviously we are the only ones who care about the old Leica lenses here. Wink

Not really, I'm sure there are many others caring for old Leica lenses on this forum Smile
I have the Hektor 135mm f/4.5 and the Telyt 200mm f/4 Visoflex lenses and I like both a lot. AFAIK there is an Elmar 135mm in Visoflex mount, too.
My old Hektor, coated but made in the '50s, has a very similar character with your Elmar presented here. Its drawbacks are the poor flare resistance and low contrast. Well, the low contrast is quite easy to correct in PP and if you don't let the lens face the direct light it's a lovely, sharp little lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As promised, here are some more pictures of my 135mm Elmar lens.
Today it was a very hot and sunny weather, so I took my Ricoh GXR-M with the Elmar with me on my daily dog walk.
Almost all shots fully open at F4 to avoid camera shake as all was shot free hand.
Only the macro of the tiny flower (which is original 10mm in diameter) with M39 extension tube and the red rose without tube at F8.
As usual no PP and all pictures in total view. Only 1 picture (goose) alternatively also shown as 100% crop to show the sharpness of the lens. For my taste it's an excellent lens. If I would not already own it, I would even pay the average selling price of 300 Euros nowadays as it is very handy to use and rather small and portable. Luckily I've bought it already some time ago for less. Wink
Maybe I'll look for a Telyt 200mm or 280mm instead. The quality is rather convincing and those lenses would equal 300mm or 420mm FOV on my Ricoh which wouldn't be bad at all for bird shooting.














PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Obviously we are the only ones who care about the old Leica lenses here.


I care, but I just can't afford them! Wink Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These old 135mm are still " affordable" compared to the 50mm . I paid 200 euros for my Tele Elmar 135mm V1. I just started using it with an A7. I am very impressed after some shots. This lens costs 4 or 5 times more than a good SLR 135 mm3.5/4 , is not compact and is a bit heavy for a slow 135mm. But my feeling is that it will stay in my bag.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
These old 135mm are still " affordable" compared to the 50mm . I paid 200 euros for my Tele Elmar 135mm V1. I just started using it with an A7. I am very impressed after some shots. This lens costs 4 or 5 times more than a good SLR 135 mm3.5/4 , is not compact and is a bit heavy for a slow 135mm. But my feeling is that it will stay in my bag.


200 Euros was a bargain. However, in terms of optical quality the Tele-Elmar seems to be equal to the Elmar, though it's a little bit more difficult to focus precisely due to it's shorter construction. It's heavier too by approximately 25%.
On the other hand those old SLR lenses you mentioned are much bigger and the question is whether those lenses compare in optical quality. I will check that later this year, as I have some other 135mm lenses for RF and SLR too. Most of those lenses have their weaknesses fully open, especially the faster ones, and the Elmar is already excellent at F4. Will be interesting....
You are right, that nice 50mm RF Summicrons are hard to find for reasonable prices nowadays. Luckily I have mine already since years....


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks quite nice, but not in the league of the tele-elmar M.

Let's face it: at 135 there are many "sharp" lenses and quite a few are very cheap. 200E is not cheap, so I'd expect some serious performance and the lens seems to deliver, but the Canon LTM 135/3.5 is just as good for about 70E, and works with all the same cameras, as is the Nikon 135/3.5 RF. Those are the true "steals".

if you are a sucker like me you must deposit about 2000E in the "bank of Leica":

image by unoh7, on Flickr

and what you get is simply the best 135 ever made, whether or not you choose to spend the time to notice the difference. It's as much about color as sharpness. And in terms of build and handling the APO is head and shoulders above all the M 135 options.

But you have to love a sharp old 135 like the Elmar Smile Gran Daddy to the mighty APO:


L1019116 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7, do you know of any rangefinder 135 that would be smaller (primarily in terms of length, but also overall perception and weight) when adapted to a mirrorless camera than a small SLR 135 would be, such as a late Minolta MD 135/3.5? Trying to imagine my X-E1 and an adapter in place of your M9, it feels like the answer in the case of the APO-Telyt would be "no", and as far as I know the Tele-Elmars are bigger than the APO-Telyt, but it's hard to find reliable information about these things.

(There's no chance that I would buy an APO-Telyt for my X-E1 - that would be rather extravagant. But something like a Tele-Elmar or a Canon might be conceivable, if it's actually smaller in practice than the Minolta I already have.)


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Looks quite nice, but not in the league of the tele-elmar M.
Let's face it: at 135 there are many "sharp" lenses and quite a few are very cheap. 200E is not cheap, so I'd expect some serious performance and the lens seems to deliver, but the Canon LTM 135/3.5 is just as good for about 70E, and works with all the same cameras, as is the Nikon 135/3.5 RF. Those are the true "steals".


I really don't know. However, as I also have the Nikon 135 RF lens and some others too I can easily find it out myself.
It's also a matter of fact, that the camera, i.e. the sensor plays a very important role and only the combination of lens AND sensor produces the picture and not the lens alone. I've tested my 135mm Elmar on both my Ricoh APS-C without low-pass filter for better details and on my Sony A850 FF camera (no infinity possible, but for other options quite usable) and found it rather excellent without any visible shortcomings. Funny enough that according to some serious testers some of the Leitz lenses appear to be better on the Ricoh than on the Leica.
I still have not done a direct comparison with other lenses on the same sensor under exactly the same conditions. Until that time I accept what you are thinking about the issue but only seeing is believing. 2.000 Euros is not shocking for me as I've spent already higher amounts for single pieces of my gear. But unless I didn't find it out myself I would never do that. Maybe I'll borrow the F3.4 version before for testing. Remains to be seen.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
uhoh7, do you know of any rangefinder 135 that would be smaller (primarily in terms of length, but also overall perception and weight) when adapted to a mirrorless camera than a small SLR 135 would be, such as a late Minolta MD 135/3.5? Trying to imagine my X-E1 and an adapter in place of your M9, it feels like the answer in the case of the APO-Telyt would be "no", and as far as I know the Tele-Elmars are bigger than the APO-Telyt, but it's hard to find reliable information about these things.

(There's no chance that I would buy an APO-Telyt for my X-E1 - that would be rather extravagant. But something like a Tele-Elmar or a Canon might be conceivable, if it's actually smaller in practice than the Minolta I already have.)


Although you didn't ask me I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge there is no really tiny lens in existence in this focus length.
Even the Tele-Elmar is only very little shorter than my Elmar but much more heavier. Due to the fact that you MUST use a huge sun shade for such lenses they all appear very big and mighty on a rather small mirror-less camera. I don't have the F3.5 Minolta but the F2.8 version. It's approximately the same size as my SMC Takumar F3.5 but much heavier (bigger in diameter). Essentially RF lenses are the smaller ones and as you need also an adapter additionally it adds size and weight. Also the rather small Nikkor RF lens is not tiny and I think it's the most heavy 135mm lens in my collection. Maybe you should rather look for a Ricoh or Leica if you are more interested in RF lenses... Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
uhoh7, do you know of any rangefinder 135 that would be smaller (primarily in terms of length, but also overall perception and weight) when adapted to a mirrorless camera than a small SLR 135 would be, such as a late Minolta MD 135/3.5? Trying to imagine my X-E1 and an adapter in place of your M9, it feels like the answer in the case of the APO-Telyt would be "no", and as far as I know the Tele-Elmars are bigger than the APO-Telyt, but it's hard to find reliable information about these things.

(There's no chance that I would buy an APO-Telyt for my X-E1 - that would be rather extravagant. But something like a Tele-Elmar or a Canon might be conceivable, if it's actually smaller in practice than the Minolta I already have.)


I don't blame you LOL re the very expensive APO.

The MD 135/3.5 and the others like it, I think are the lightest, but I was never that impressed with mine. The lightest RF is the late Canon 135/3.5 "black". Not 25 USD like the MD, but around 70USD will get you one, it's lighter than the APO and sharper (in my copies) than the MD.


DSC01562 by unoh7, 400 Grams.

The other nice small one is the OM 135/2.8, which is only like 330 grams and so much faster.

Now, if you want the smallest lightest cheapest and can stand a 100:

DSC01625 by unoh7, on Flickr

Canon 100/3.5 RF, about 140USD. Under 200 grams!! Wicked wicked sharp. But you need to watch the haze factor: many copies have it.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have that Canon LTM 3.5/135 mounted on my NEX right now actually. Good lens, but probably not the best RF 135 I have. I have a Komura 135 that is similar in rendering and sharpness, a bit smaller, but I think slightly heavier. I have three 1950s Jupiter-11 4/135s, those are smaller and lighter than the Canon, equally as sharp I think. The best two RF 135s I have are a 1955 Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135 and a 1957 Zeiss Opton Sonnar 4/135; both are laser sharp at all apertures. I'm in the middle of testing the Canon, the weather has been atrocious sadly, holding things up a bit.

I'm going to sell my Canon and Komura, just don't need them, both are mint.

If I were to pick the best 135s from the very many I own and have owned, it's these three:

Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar (Sonnar) 3.5/135 - late model in Praktica bayonet mount
Konica Hexanon 3.2/135 - nothing beats this in close-up performance and colours
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135 - another stunning Topcor, has a tiny wee bit more microcontrast than the Hexanon and is ever so slightly sharper at infinity.

Sadly, none of those mentioned fit my Sony a850, so on that camera I use either a Mamiya-Sekor SX 2.8/135 or an M42 Jupiter-11 4/135 or a DKL Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135.

If I were to invest in another 135mm lens, it would have to be an improvement on what I already own, which pretty much narrows it down to T* or Leica and I doubt either will outperform the best lenses I already have by a significant enough margin to justify the expense.

An alternative to that Canon 100mm is the Sankor 2.5/105, also small and light, pretty common lens, seen under very many different brands. Interchangeable mount so comes in many mount flavours.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Presently I am searching thru all my boxes and checking my inventory of lenses. I believe that I've found all my 135mm ones (at least for 35mm cameras RF and SLR). In total 12 lenses. Actually I should do a comparison between those lenses as I don't think that it makes sense to keep all of them. I will publish the result here. However, it will take some time, that should be clear..... Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
glaebhoerl wrote:
uhoh7, do you know of any rangefinder 135 that would be smaller (primarily in terms of length, but also overall perception and weight) when adapted to a mirrorless camera than a small SLR 135 would be, such as a late Minolta MD 135/3.5? Trying to imagine my X-E1 and an adapter in place of your M9, it feels like the answer in the case of the APO-Telyt would be "no", and as far as I know the Tele-Elmars are bigger than the APO-Telyt, but it's hard to find reliable information about these things.

(There's no chance that I would buy an APO-Telyt for my X-E1 - that would be rather extravagant. But something like a Tele-Elmar or a Canon might be conceivable, if it's actually smaller in practice than the Minolta I already have.)


Although you didn't ask me I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge there is no really tiny lens in existence in this focus length.
Even the Tele-Elmar is only very little shorter than my Elmar but much more heavier. Due to the fact that you MUST use a huge sun shade for such lenses they all appear very big and mighty on a rather small mirror-less camera. I don't have the F3.5 Minolta but the F2.8 version. It's approximately the same size as my SMC Takumar F3.5 but much heavier (bigger in diameter). Essentially RF lenses are the smaller ones and as you need also an adapter additionally it adds size and weight. Also the rather small Nikkor RF lens is not tiny and I think it's the most heavy 135mm lens in my collection. Maybe you should rather look for a Ricoh or Leica if you are more interested in RF lenses... Wink


The Roeschlein-Kreuznach Telenar 135mm f/5.6 is a tiny gem, smaller than the Canon 100mm Wink



PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:

The Roeschlein-Kreuznach Telenar 135mm f/5.6 is a tiny gem, smaller than the Canon 100mm Wink


OK, that's a rather strange lens and not the fastest one with F5.6, and with an effective lens shade it almost doubles in length. Wink

BTW, what are your results with this lens? Do you like it? How does it compare to other lenses?
I've already looked at Roeschlein. He was a lens designer for Schneider before he founded his own company.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
tb_a wrote:
glaebhoerl wrote:
uhoh7, do you know of any rangefinder 135 that would be smaller (primarily in terms of length, but also overall perception and weight) when adapted to a mirrorless camera than a small SLR 135 would be, such as a late Minolta MD 135/3.5? Trying to imagine my X-E1 and an adapter in place of your M9, it feels like the answer in the case of the APO-Telyt would be "no", and as far as I know the Tele-Elmars are bigger than the APO-Telyt, but it's hard to find reliable information about these things.

(There's no chance that I would buy an APO-Telyt for my X-E1 - that would be rather extravagant. But something like a Tele-Elmar or a Canon might be conceivable, if it's actually smaller in practice than the Minolta I already have.)


Although you didn't ask me I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge there is no really tiny lens in existence in this focus length.
Even the Tele-Elmar is only very little shorter than my Elmar but much more heavier. Due to the fact that you MUST use a huge sun shade for such lenses they all appear very big and mighty on a rather small mirror-less camera. I don't have the F3.5 Minolta but the F2.8 version. It's approximately the same size as my SMC Takumar F3.5 but much heavier (bigger in diameter). Essentially RF lenses are the smaller ones and as you need also an adapter additionally it adds size and weight. Also the rather small Nikkor RF lens is not tiny and I think it's the most heavy 135mm lens in my collection. Maybe you should rather look for a Ricoh or Leica if you are more interested in RF lenses... Wink


The Roeschlein-Kreuznach Telenar 135mm f/5.6 is a tiny gem, smaller than the Canon 100mm Wink



That's a cool one, but I bet it is not lighter than the canon Smile What does it weigh? What is the mount?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Nordentro wrote:

The Roeschlein-Kreuznach Telenar 135mm f/5.6 is a tiny gem, smaller than the Canon 100mm Wink


OK, that's a rather strange lens and not the fastest one with F5.6, and with an effective lens shade it almost doubles in length. Wink

BTW, what are your results with this lens? Do you like it? How does it compare to other lenses?
I've already looked at Roeschlein. He was a lens designer for Schneider before he founded his own company.


I use my hand as shade if necessary Wink

Well, I would say it is an average performing lens, fully usable


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:


That's a cool one, but I bet it is not lighter than the canon Smile What does it weigh? What is the mount?


The lens is aluminium made and have probably similar weight as the Canon, m39 mount Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The two smallest 135mms are the Fujita 4.5/135 and the Tamron 4.5/135.



Fujita is on the right, Tamron next to it.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:

The lens is aluminium made and have probably similar weight as the Canon, m39 mount Wink


well... M39 yes... but Paxette


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
Nordentro wrote:

The lens is aluminium made and have probably similar weight as the Canon, m39 mount Wink


well... M39 yes... but Paxette


Exactly! That was the reason I didn't buy it when I saw it the first time on Ebay....

I still haven't found any method to adapt Paxette lenses to my cameras. Unfortunately, because they are really cheap and there are some good ones around. I have only 1 Paxette lens from ISCO and gave already up trying to use it....


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just get a small M39 extension tube Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3