Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mike... For the past 3 and a 1/2 years I've been going through the same thing you describe; getting the Leica bug and upgrading to full Leica content. During that time, I've owned five 135mm Leica lenses [an early and a very late Hektor, two early goggled 135 f/2.8s and the current 135 APO]. If you are wanting to just get your feet wet, the Hektor isn't a bad choice to start with and a mint condition unit can be found for ~ $100 or so. The later the better; antireflective coatings began in screw mount around serial number 590xxx [1942?] and production numbers ended in M mount around 1827xxx [1960]. I used both of mine quite a bit, but it is a very slow lens, even with fast film. Images from the earliest unit were quite warm in rendition; the later unit had more neutral color and much less lens flare. Quite light in weight, if that is a factor for you, but that has to be offset by the weight of the tripod it needs for low light conditions. CLAs are pretty much required for these when you first get them, but they are inexpensive to have serviced. Frustrated by the lack of handheld available light options with the Hektor, I upgraded to the goggled 135 f/2.8. Prices for the f/2.8 vary greatly; early user units [1st version 1962 - 1967xxx] can go for as little as $400 or so and the later units [end of the 2nd version 1998 - 3750xxx] are $700 and up. This is one of the few M lenses heavier than a Noctilux [my primary lens] and it is *much* bulkier. I discovered the handheld available light use of the f/2.8 to be very limited, and it would add mere minutes to what I had previously been able to get with the Hektor at early twilight and added nothing to dark interiors; another tripod lens, or flash is needed. Color rendition is neutral on the early models and I found little in the way of lens flare. The goggles are *very* nice and allow you to see everything magnified to *just* the 135 frames on the M3 or M6; however they can be knocked out of alignment fairly easily, so keep in mind the f/2.8 may need to go out for servicing more frequently than you are accustomed to. Bokeh is very nice and buttery, if you are into it, and the depth of field wide open at close focus approaches that of the Noct. Wanting to get rid of the extra weight of the f/2.8, I very recently upgraded to the APO. Only a half stop slower, the APO is sharper, *much* less bulky and lighter than the f/2.8. Prices for used units are pretty high for it at the present, but should not require servicing should you pick one up. I find using the M6 .85 with the 1.25x magnifier to help a lot in focusing, but not to the same extent as the goggles on the f/2.8. So far, I feel the images are acceptable [the colors *really* sparkle and flare is non-existent], but I give the nod to the f/2.8 for portraits and bokeh. I'm still playing with it, but may go back to the f/2.8 for my final choice in the 135 arena. Hope that helps you. /Mitch _________________________________________ Mitch Zeissler E-mail: zeissler@directvinternet.com > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 6:02 PM > Subject: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M > > I wish to acquire a Leica 135mm lens for use at coffeeshops, stage > shows, dance productions. Unfortunately the current 135f3.4 is out of > my affordability range. How do the 135f2.8 Elmarit and the 135f4 > Tele-Elmar compare for my intended use. > > What are the advantages/disadvantages of each of these lenses from > personal experiences? > > Many thanks, Mike - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html