Technically they are good. But Look at SLR lenses....the 135s are also the
"gone & forgotten" .....as low as $39 on Eb*y.
Seems they are the reverse-goldilocks lens ....... too long or too short..... rarely just right.
Last edited:
Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?
-
A
- Thread starter RezaLoghme
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Pan-Tilt Head
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Norma 8x10 - 4x5 Reducing Adapter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Horseman 6x12 Roll Film Holder
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Gepe 2X50 Universal Slide Trays - New!
- Started by davela
Forum statistics
Technically they are good. But Look at SLR lenses....the 135s are also the
"gone & forgotten" .....as low as $39 on Eb*y.
Seems they are the reverse-goldilocks lens ....... too long or too short..... rarely just right.
Leica M and thread mount 90mm lenses were under $100 almost all the time up until a few years ago. No one wanted them. The 135 is almost absurd on a thread mount Leica - but it's still a good lens. You really need to use your imagination with the universal finder, though. It's an incredibly small area. It is, of course, the same in the framelines of the M - but at least you can see around it there.
Don, I think you're stretching things.... the 90 mm Summicron .....even back in the day was much more than $100.
The last 90mm Elmarit (w integral hood) I sold netted me me over $1000 CAD. Some of us still like the 'fat' 90 mm Tele-Elmarit....but never saw one under $100.....
Well I bought a couple of 90mm/4 lenses which were made for the CL, until I finally accepted that they do not work properly on modern digital M bodies. One of them was around 100 EUR. I found them to have one of the most delicate, even emotional lens barrel shapes of all Leica lenses. Maybe I am going give them just another try now that I have a EVF2.
But on my M6 and M4, focussing was hit and miss. And no, I really do not want a CL, never wanted one, never will.
But on my M6 and M4, focussing was hit and miss. And no, I really do not want a CL, never wanted one, never will.
Omitting things is more accurate - I forgot the word "Elmar". The fixed and collapsible 90mm Elmars were cheap. I think the writing "Summicron" costs more than that.
Please remove the link if somebody is offended:
I had one of those, too. Quite dreamy look. Cheaper than a handmade strap.
I had one of those, too. Quite dreamy look. Cheaper than a handmade strap.
I don't know what that means. Generally, an f4 90mm Elmar is very sharp. Was yours all scratched up?
It mean it looks dreamier than modern lenses, if we talking 90/4 Elmar-C or older.
I recently picked up a 135/4 Elmar for a really good price. I don't plan on any regular use of this focal length, but I wanted the option. It's certainly not as sharp as my modern Summicrons, but I wouldn't call it "dreamy", if that means soft(er). The results from this lens are plenty sharp enough.
Well, its probbably as subjective as many other things, I describe it as "dreamy"
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 2,054
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
The 135/4 Leitz Hektor is nicely made, and the image quality is alright, but it's no 105/2.5 Nikkor-P.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,412
- Format
- 4x5 Format
You might see differences if there are issues with the shutter, for example capping at high speeds, inaccurate times, leaks when winding, pinholes.
No, it is a 135/4 Hektor.
I got a good deal on a 90/2.8 Elmarit-M that I use on my Ms. It is right on par with the shorter Summicrons.
The Hektor is really the odd one as it really needs stopping down a lot, I have this one too but didn't mention it for a reason: It's not really that good. I also had the 4/135 Elmar, which was a whole another story and wonderful but lower contrast and the 4/135 Tele-Elmar which is a high-contrast tackdriver. For portraits the Elmar is the best in my book. For anything which benefits from a sharp, engraving-like look, I can recommend the Tele-Elmar.
Who wants to chime in on the 2.8/135 Elmarit? It never had the favor of trying that one.
I own a R version.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 516
The 135mm lens was introduced because it was the longest focal length that could be accurately focused with the Leica's rangefinder. And that it was already a common focal length for 3x4", 9x12cm, and 4x5" cameras.
Remember that telephoto lenses (on any cameras) were extremely rare before that time, so a 135mm lens was an amazing advance in capability- that did a great deal to sell Leicas, Contaxes, and their later competitors.
As far as the OP's question about differing results with different camera models, no. There has been no evidence (in the last 70 years) that there is any image quality difference between any of the Leica M camera bodies. Of course you may think so, and if you set out to prove it, you'll likely find it; that is what's known as "confirmation bias". Or less politely, "bat***t crazy". What follows from that (as we all have learned, sadly) is a conspiracy theory, "There is a difference, but THEY are all covering it up".
You might as well look for image-quality differences between chrome-plated and black camera bodies. Oh, and show your results, please!
Remember that telephoto lenses (on any cameras) were extremely rare before that time, so a 135mm lens was an amazing advance in capability- that did a great deal to sell Leicas, Contaxes, and their later competitors.
As far as the OP's question about differing results with different camera models, no. There has been no evidence (in the last 70 years) that there is any image quality difference between any of the Leica M camera bodies. Of course you may think so, and if you set out to prove it, you'll likely find it; that is what's known as "confirmation bias". Or less politely, "bat***t crazy". What follows from that (as we all have learned, sadly) is a conspiracy theory, "There is a difference, but THEY are all covering it up".
You might as well look for image-quality differences between chrome-plated and black camera bodies. Oh, and show your results, please!
Slightly off the topic again: the 90mm ƒ/4 Elmar-M rigid is a pretty decent lens. It is easy to take on a trip. But, at least on mine, I like to stop down to ƒ/5.6 or smaller. The picture below is a freighter that chugged past the house. This from my Fuji X-E1 camera; the focal length approximates 135mm on this format. I may look into one of the more modern 90s or maybe a 75.
I'm just doing this with Voigtlander Nokton Asph 75 1.5 and APO Skopar 90 2.8 in M mount.
Yeah one can see how the lens makes the picture much more analog and creamy.
The viewfinder is the same .72 on all three bodies.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |