Favorite classic ltm telephoto?

[darinwc]

What is your favorite telephoto in the 80-100mm range?
Seems like there are many brands to choose from.. Leica, Nikon, Canon, Jupiter..
I'm looking for something in the 200-300 $ range, so rare collector items are out.
And I'm looking only at vintage lenses, so CV are out.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Thread mount lenses puts a limit on it. If you can find a good Jupiter 85 get it. Great lens. Go for one of the early silver ones and cross your fingers... The 100 f/2 Canon didn't impress me at all. Lots of flare even though it was clean. I sold mine and since the formula was basically the same as the 85 1.8, I lost all interest in the 85. The lowly Elmar 90 isn't too bad. Just depends what you are looking for. If you can find a 135 Canon Black lens snag it. I couldn't believe how good the one I have is. Going a little out of the mainstream you may want to find a Steinheil Culminar. I have the 135 and it is really nice. I'd bet the 85 is just as good.

 

[jimjm]

The Canon 100/3.5 LTM lens in black/chrome is a great lens. Lightweight and compact with great performance.

 

[guangong]

Very reassuring Jimjim, because I am awaiting delivery of that lens from Japan. Will fit to my Canon P.

 

[Paul Howell]

Minolta 85, Canon 100, 135, were all used on Canon 7S.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It depends which RF body it must be on. FSU ain't so good on Leica, Bessa. Due to focus issues.
I have tried 90 USD (fare price) coated, almost no fungus Elmar 90 f4 ltm on Leica M4-2 and the lens is nothing but great. Small and sharp with super bokeh. Don't really need anything else.
For FSU LTM simply take any available FSU ltm tele. Nothing is wrong if FSU tele ltm lens is in working order.
No idea on Canonikon, they are all CV to me.

 

[georg16nik]

Elmar 90/4 is the all-time classic. Never replaced mine, nor looked for alternatives.

 

[mnemosyne]

The Canon 100/3.5 LTM lens in black/chrome is a great lens. Lightweight and compact with great performance.

Very good lens indeed, unfortunately 9 out of 10 samples encountered suffer from a permanent form of haze, so be careful when looking for one.

 

[02Pilot]

I have both an Elmar 90/4 and Canon 100/3.5. They are almost identical in terms of size and weight. Optically, the Elmar is really quite good, but the Canon is fantastic. Both use 34mm filters. I always use a deep hood on mine (34-37 step-up ring with a generic 37mm hood). The warning above regarding the haze problem is accurate - if you decide to go for the Canon, make sure you can inspect it or get very good photos of the optics before you buy. The Elmar will be easier to find, but they have relatively soft glass, so check the front element for damage.

 

[chip j]

I've seen pics of a 85 1.4 & 200 Komura.

 

[Kirks518]

Well, I picked up a Canon 85mm f/2 this week for my Canon IIb, and just finished a roll in it. I can't say from personal experience yet (roll not developed), but it had very good reviews and nice samples online. When I get the roll developed, I'll update.

 

[guangong]

Had to return my canon 100 f3.5 back to Japan because of too much haze. Mentioned this to my friend and he gave me a mint, never been used specimen that included a Leica bayonet mount. Haven't had chance to use it yet but friend said lens is no slouch.

 

[faurefan]

I have two early silver Jupiter 9s and one of them is just superb. Strangely, it's not the one with the red letter on it!

 

[frank]

90 Elmar. Classic. Period.

 

[darkroommike]

Elmar 90/4 is the all-time classic. Never replaced mine, nor looked for alternatives.

I got my ugly as all get out Elmar for under $100.00 so why look further?

 

[Pioneer]

I like the classic Elmar 90/4 but replace it with the Cosina Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 and never looked back. Great lens for color and black & white.

For 135 I like my Canon but it is the only one I own so can't compare with anything else. I use it only rarely so never had a need to find another.

 

[mnemosyne]

I got my ugly as all get out Elmar for under $100.00 so why look further?

Because there are lenses out there for the same price that are (at the same time) faster, sharper wide open, lighter in weight and smaller, e.g. the Canon 100/3.5. But I agree the Canon is harder to find in good condition. A very nice, rarely mentioned lens is the late 3-element Elmar 90mm f4, which is an excellent performer (markedly better then the classic Elmar 90 and on par with the Canon), but is quite rare in LTM and expensive.

 

[daleeman]

I like my 135 with eyes. It helps the M2 size up the viewfinder and has given me outstanding images of eagles plucking fish out of the Atlantic. Gives me a bit of distance in shooting portraits to make people at ease too.

 

[NoClewAtol]

Forgive me please, I'm old and 'out of it'. What is "fsu"?

 

[flavio81]

Forgive me please, I'm old and 'out of it'. What is "fsu"?

Former Soviet Union

 

[GRHazelton]

Any votes for the Nikon 105mm f 2.5 for the Nikon rangefinders? Excellent and not too expensive. Too bad about the Nikon Contax focus problem....

 

[darinwc]

Did they ever make the Nikkor 105mm in Leica thread mount? Except for being heavy, it is an awesome lens. A few were made for contax mount. But I've never seen a Leica mount.

 

[Fixcinater]

Canon 85/2: Chrome, heavy, slow focus. Nice results, nearly as good as the 85/1.8 when both are equivalent shape optics-wise. Would be hard to prefer one over the other, the f/2 looks a bit "older" in it's images produced vs. the more modern formulation of the f/1.8 since that was one of the last LTM lenses Canon developed.
Canon 85/1.8: I found a beater that needed work and I have it in good enough shape to shoot with it now. Same glass as the SLR Canon FL 85/1.8. Heavy but short.
Canon 100/3.5: Great and the early 34mm filter thread version is TINY, I like it better than the Elmar 90/4 even if filters and hoods are harder to find.
Elmar 90/4: Fine but somewhat uninspiring for me. I guess I just prefer the Canons' fit and finish as I'm more of a LTM Canon fan than Barnack Leicas.
Schacht Travenar 85/2.8: I have one but someone pulled it all apart then put it on eBay and haven't had time to get to putting it all back together. Will be a very small 85mm, quite lightweight due to the aluminum body.

 

[GRHazelton]

Any votes for the Nikon 105mm f 2.5 for the Nikon rangefinders? Excellent and not too expensive. Too bad about the Nikon Contax focus problem....

Oops! I somehow ignored the LTM in the OP. Mea culpa!

 

[darinwc]

Nope, You are right. The Nikkor 105mm f2.5 did come in LTM, though it is hard to find.