Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens
From: leirex at (SML)
Date: Wed Sep 15 08:34:31 2004
References: <000001c49a51$111bce80$6401a8c0@dorysrusp4>


  Please do not forget about the black version of this lens which in my book
is not heavy at all.  I have never used the chrome version but the black
version is every inch as good as the Leica 135/4 Elmar (or 135/4.5 Hektor)
and the Nikon 135/3.5 probably at a tad bit cheaper price.  The black
version is pretty compact and excellent performer in every respect at a
bargain.  I presume that the black version has better coatings too.
  I did know that the Nikon 135/3.5 was a carbon copy of the Zeiss lens but
did not know that the Canon 135/3.5 was basically the same as the Zeiss
Sonnar too.  Then there is no doubt that either the Canon or the Nikon would
perform just about the same in optical performance.  I have heard that most
of the Nikon and the Canon lenses made in that era were better performer
than the comparable Leica lenses.  One good example is the Canon 100/2 which
has been considered better performer than the 90/2 Summicron.  In a
nutshell, these Canon and Nikon rangefinder lenses are excellent in
performance at much small numbers.  This info is what I have gathered from
various users and collectors including my experience.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Dory" <>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:50 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens

> Ken,
> This is basically a Zeiss Sonnar 135 so most of the comments from that
> lens apply as well.  Like most 30's designs wide open performance is a
> little soft but by 5.6 you are getting fine detail in most of your
> image.  As well with most thirties designs, flare can be an issue when
> shooting into the light.  The lens is indeed made of heavy chrome plate
> on solid brass so weight is a factor to consider.
> Using it on a IIIf there is no problem with obstruction of the
> viewfinder although focusing for a wide open shot is somewhat
> challenging.
> Considering price, there is probably no better 135mm lens for a LTM
> camera other than perhaps the 135 Nikkor which offers similar
> performance and weight unless you find a late black version that has an
> aluminum barrel.
> If there is someone who sell the Russian Zeiss design 135's so returns
> are easy this lens is much lighter, offers perhaps better performance as
> the F4 design has not been stretched, and the coatings will be much
> better than the Leitz designs for LTM.
> If you can the Canon lens for the $100 range, why not just get one?
> Even if you use it only once a year and then decide that longer focal
> lengths are not your cup, you can sell the puppy for what you paid for
> it.  These things are just about fully depreciated.
> Don
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf
> Of Kenneth Frazier
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:55 AM
> To: Leica Group
> Subject: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens
> Listers:
> Anybody had any experience with the Canon 135/3.5 LTM lens on a IIIf?
> Ken Frazier
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Replies: Reply from kennybod at (Kenneth Frazier) ([Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens)
In reply to: Message from dorysrus at (Don Dory) ([Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens)