Re: [Leica] Q: Comments or observations about the M type 135mm lenses

[Charles Babington <cbabing3@swbell.net>]

I used the 135/f4 on M3 and M5 bodies in the 70s and 80s and had no
particular difficulty with the small frame lines on the M5 (although the
M3 was better for this lens.)  I now have only an M6, and recently got a
135/2.8 for use in low light theater photography and find it to give
excellent results but at a cost.  The eyes magnify the image and the
lens keys the 90mm finder lines.  You can't see much outside the frame
lines, though, so your view is much more concentrated.  Also, the lens
is quite heavy (more than a Noctilux, more than 3x my old 90/2.8 "thin"
Tele Elmarit) and the camera baseplate will wobble quite visibly if you
try to use this outfit on a tripod using the camera socket rather than
the socket on the lens.  The tripod socket on the lens is just behind
the focusing ring, so you need to be sure you can get your fingers in to
focus without too much interference from the tripod head (my setup is an
Arca-Swiss clamp on a monopod with an RRS plate on the lens - quick to
attach and adequate finger room for focusing, but it's not great.)

All that said, I love the results from this lens at the one production 
I've shot so far.  Accurate focusing on a dim stage (sometimes 1/8 at
2.8 and ISO 800) is a snap.  Nothing else would have done the job,
including the Nikon 135/2.0 I was using before the Nikon noise and
not-very-reliable focusing drove me back to the Ms.  The 2.8 is probably
too heavy to take on vacation (unless you know you'll have a desperate
need for the speed) although for that purpose I remember the 135/4.0 as
being relatively light, if a bit long.

I've read that the 135/2.8 has been discontinued, but there are plenty
of them out there and they aren't very expensive (as M lenses go.)  Mine
came from Don Chatterton in marvellous condition for under $600 US.  If
you have a need for the speed and can bear the weight, I'd recommend you
go for it.

Cheers,
Kip Babington