Canon 135mm f/2.5 M

meanwhile · Expire: 2016-11-28

I think this lens is exactly what I am after.
Fastish (f/2.5), tiny (8cm in length), comparably light (500gm).
Sounds perfect!

Thing is, I can't really find out much about it at all, seems like a bit of a phantom lens.

Does anyone know more about this lens, or have one?
Is it the FL lens? On the Canon museum site it is in the S series section with the other LTM lenses.

Canon 135mm f/2.5 M

Lens info
Lens Construction (group) 4
Lens Construction (element) 6
No. of Diaphragm Blades 13
Minimum Aperture f/22
Closest Focusing Distance 1.5 m
Maximum Magnifcation -
Filter Size 58 mm
Maximum Diameter x Length 64.5 x 77.2 mm
Weight 500 gr (1.1 lb)
Hood -

Thanks!

meanwhile · Expire: 2016-11-28

Ah, of course, straight after posting, I think I've found it.

http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Canon_MB2.html

Thought it was too good to be true for an LTM. Smile

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Well . . . it's not often found and the Canon collectors have probably driven the price into the stratosphere by now BUT if you can find one at an affordable price I believe it could actually be used on a mirrorless camera. It has the regular Canon bayonet, so "all you need" is an extension ring or rings of suitable length to make up the correct register distance. Plenty of Canon extension tubes around on eBay !

You may not get an exact register for infinity - i.e the lens may not quite get there, or it may focus "past" infinity - but I'm fairly sure it would be useable.

If you really fancy the lens, the regular reflex versions are still quite affordable - and a far easier way to go.

ramiller500 · Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:42 pm Post subject:

The Canon M 135mm/2.5 preset lens has the same optical design and breech lock ring geometry as the R and FL versions, but a shorter barrel to allow for the Mirror Box 2 between the lens and the Canon 7 rangefinder camera.

I have one that I've used on Canon breech lock SLR bodies and it gives very nice pictures (such as portraits) when used with a 25mm Canon extension tube (= the "life size adapter" for the 50mm/3.5 macro lens), but it won't quite focus at infinity with that tube. The 20mm tube is too short to allow close-up shots. Canon once made a focusing extension tube that could be useful here.

I'd like to see a bokeh comparison between the M and FL versions, since the M has more leaves in its diaphragm, creating a really round aperture.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I don't have the 135/2.5 but do have the 100/2 in both Leica thread and R bayonet models. The Leica fit one has a near circular iris, the other the hexagonal type. I make no comment on the pictures but leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the differences when there are no points of light in the picture.

First couple to show there's no difference in image formation at full aperture:

Then stopped down to f4:

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Well, the prices for Canon 135mm f/2.5 lenses aren't stratospheric yet -- far from it. I just had a look at US eBay and there are several FD and FL examples in the $30-40US range. Happy hunting!

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18