LEICA ELMAR 135mm f/4 (1960-1965) Ref. 11850

[RezaLoghme]

I am interested in this lens -who is using it?

 

[miha]

I am interested in this lens -who is using it?

This guy is:

135mm f/4 Leitz Elmar lens | Photographs, Photographers and Photography

and here:

135mm Elmar resolution test | Photographs, Photographers and Photography

 

[RezaLoghme]

Super interesting link!

This looks like a 1930 Sci-Fi monster:

I bougth one!

 

[Arthurwg]

We'd like to hear your report.

 

[RezaLoghme]

If all goes well its arriving today.

 

[Don_ih]

The size is uncomfortable for much use on a Leica. The viewfinder situation is not good, either. You get to compose in a tiny rectangle in the middle of the finder. Also, how far out the lens sticks makes it far more likely you'll have some camera shake unless the camera is on a tripod.

Most 135 Leica lenses look like they've never been used.... Because they've never been used.

 

[RezaLoghme]

It arrived! Quick test on Monochrome body showed a rather flat contrast in low light settings, compared to my modern M lenses. Will test again tomorrow morning outside the house.

Size is quite a handful, but doable. It is not very heavy. The aperture clicks were "solid", and all in all it seems like a charming lens which is super affordable (I paid around 200 EUR, yes 200). No idea why the Japanese digital community has not discovered it yet.

Would I use it on my M6 and its tiny rectangle in the viewfinder? Maybe not.

 

[GregY]

It arrived! Quick test on Monochrome body showed a rather flat contrast in low light settings, compared to my modern M lenses. Will test again tomorrow morning outside the house.

Size is quite a handful, but doable. It is not very heavy. The aperture clicks were "solid", and all in all it seems like a charming lens which is super affordable (I paid around 200 EUR, yes 200). No idea why the Japanese digital community has not discovered it yet.

Would I use it on my M6 and its tiny rectangle in the viewfinder? Maybe not.

As a long time M camera user, for me 135 is the least useful focal length.
& yes it will have less contrast than newer models

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes my 135mm R is easier to handle. And it gives the smallish R bodies a bit of heft.

Still, for the time being the 135 M is in good standing. Let's give it a chance.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Great lens. Here are some photos I took with it earlier this year on my old Leica iiic:
20250212-South America 202520250212_11155234 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
20250212-South America 202520250212_12500994 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

 

[loccdor]

I enjoy using the Jupiter-11 135mm f/4 on the Kiev 4. Framing on that camera can pretty closely be estimated by the size of the rangefinder patch - almost the same dimensions.

Your Leica lens is a little sharper. Both are 4-element Sonnar designs. 135mm lenses in general tend to be near their maximum sharpness already when wide open and don't improve much when stopping down. While thought of as a portrait lens, it can be a little long for that (you may find yourself shouting to your model due to distance). I prefer 100mm for portrait. 135mm is actually a really good landscape focal length for when a selection of the scene is stronger than a wide view. And the ones of f/4 aperture are quite light for extending carrying.

The Sonnar design means you can expect pleasing out of focus areas.

I own 3 135mm lenses - from a heavy f/1.8 modern lens, an f/2.5 70s design, to an f/4 20s/30s design. All are enjoyable to use. I'm torn between 100mm and 135mm as my favorite focal length.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I did not have the time yet to really use the lens in daylight conditions. But I am curious.

You are right about the length (both physical and focal length). It was an itch to scratch, and if I dont like the lens I can always sell or bin it.

 

[Saganich]

The Tele-Elmar 135 may be a better choice for similar price and works well on a viso II.

 

[Arthurwg]

Great lens. Here are some photos I took with it earlier this year on my old Leica iiic:
20250212-South America 202520250212_11155234 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
20250212-South America 202520250212_12500994 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

Nice pictures. How did you tone them??

 

[RezaLoghme]

+1

Saw them before, which does not diminish their greatness.

 

[miha]

Super interesting link!

This looks like a 1930 Sci-Fi monster:

I bougth one!

Thomas Pindelski

Always credit the photographer when posting their work. https://pindelski.org/Photography/about/

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Nice pictures. How did you tone them??

When wet printing I bleach with potassium ferrocyanide (with some K-bromide), then redevelop with sodium sulfide, but with these scans I pushed the sepia tone button ;-)

 

[Wallendo]

I own one of these. I am happy with the images. I usually use the rangefinder patch for composition, but also have a USSR external viewfinder to use.

I don’t use it as often as I should, but I just find that longer length lenses work better with a SLR/DSLR.

 

[Arthurwg]

I don’t use it as often as I should, but I just find that longer length lenses work better with a SLR/DSLR.

Exactly.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yeah I have used it with an EVF2.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Update: I still had no opportunity to use the 135mm Elmar 4.0 outside the house. Winter sunlight does not help either.

 

[davela]

Long lenses on rangefinders are vastly underrated IMO. I use them frequently. There are tons of them out there in LTM, as that was a popular way to deploy a telephoto with a 35mm camera before SLR's ruled. There are lenses as long as 400mm made for rangefinder use, with external finders that look like rifle sites. Of course reflex adapters such as the Visoflex and its many knock-offs made this more practical.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes long lenses for RF cameras exist, as you said that was the default before SLRs became widespread.
But does that makes them practical?
For me the advantage of a RF is the view which resembles that of the human eye, best to be enjoyed with a 35mm or 50mm lens.

 

[davela]

Yes long lenses for RF cameras exist, as you said that was the default before SLRs became widespread.
But does that makes them practical?
For me the advantage of a RF is the view which resembles that of the human eye, best to be enjoyed with a 35mm or 50mm lens.

I prefer rangefinders for everything to be honest, even for telephoto work. If you want the view to be right, that's what a reflex viewer is for - just build your rangefinder into an SLR as needed, and only as needed. The 35mm SLR has has not aged nearly as well as the rangefinder IMO. I think Leica had it right from almost day one. And besides, some of us like tinkering with retro cleverly well made vintage gear and rangefinders really provide almost unlimited opportunities for that! I do own and use plenty of SLR's however.

Here's my Contax IIa on a Kilfit 400mmm F5.6 ready to take shots of rocket launches near the Kennedy Space Center.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes, of course, for "tinkering" everything goes.
As I own both RF and SLR Leicas, and 135mm lenses for both systems, I can compare them directly.