M 135mm Apo-Telyt or the M 135mm Tele Elmar?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I have a 1970s T-E which has not seen much use since I bought it some time ago. Recently I have been taking more street photos using longer focal lengths. Has anyone done a test with these 2 lenses? Is the Apo Telyt that much better? After all there isn't even a full one stop difference between the two lenses and I have read on this LUG thread that the T-E is also an Apo lens though I have not seen the source for this claim. Thanks.

-- David (yeo_d@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001

Answers

David, It might help if you could tell us what type of film/processing you use. I'm interested in the same question that you posed. Bud

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 26, 2001.

In Brian Bower's book, "Leica M Photography", he has several shots with the older f/4.0 lens used wide open and states that it has "near APO quality". The new lens design may in fact be better, but is it worth the expense for an upgrade that based on the statement in your question would be for a lens that you haven't used much? I recommend you put the older lens on your camera and go shoot some film... it might be everything you need.

This same consideration that you are asking about is the same as many people that are thinking of trading up to a 90mm AA Summicron from the 90mm Elmarit M. You have to ask yourself if the benefit of the improved optical design would be realized under actual use. Optical testing on a tripod with a cable release can show one lens to be better than another, but when used handheld for street shooting (which you are asking about), there is a difference between "potential" quality and "realized" quality. My Elmarit M shots are sharp enough for me, so I'll forgo the spending of money for improvement that can't be that great in the real world.

I would think that the 135mm Tele-Elmarit is able to deliver quality higher than can be actualized in use on a handheld camera, so what would a sharper lens offer?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 26, 2001.


I can answer this one from personal experience. I own a 1975 model 135/4 Tele-Elmar, bought a mint E46 version (at the time, the idea was to have filter compatibility with my 28/2.8 and 90/2.8)which I sold to buy a brand-new APO-Telyt based on the glowing review by a well-known Leica Lens Tester. Now I have a single E49 lens which demands its own wardrobe of filters, and which I can not discern any optical advantage over my 1975 T-E with K25 or Velvia, shots made on a sturdy tripod with a cable release, not at any aperture or distance. Oh yes, and a hole in my bank account surpassed only by the one in my head for having bought a lens based totally on hearsay. My advice (as if you couldn't have guessed) is keep your T- E.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 26, 2001.

David:

Given Jay's review, IMO you should run out and buy a new 135APO -- and I'll help you out by taking your old one aff of your hands! :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 26, 2001.


David...

May I suggest an older 135/2.8 Elmarit (with goggles). I picked one up used for just over $400. I love it. While it is certainly not used nearly as much as my 35/2 and my 50/2, for the right job it is wonderful. The goggles magnify the viewfinder image so that it uses the 90mm framlines instead of the normal 135mm framelines. I use it mostly to shoot theatre shots, concert shots and recording studio shots, but I do use it elsewhere on occasion. Works great. There are people who complain about its size and weight (which is considerable compared to other Leica lens) but I find that my M6-TTL with the 135/2.8 has pretty much the same heft and feel as my Nikon F3 with a 35-70/3.5 zoom, so it isn't that much of an ajustment for me. There's even a tripod socket on the lens which comes in very handy!

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), August 26, 2001.



I have an older Tele-elmarit, the 39mm version, and I thought it was very good even wide open when I first purchased it. Later I noticed it had a very light fog inside, so I had it cleaned along with my M3 overhaul. The results I am getting with it now are just stunning-- its as sharp as my 50mm Summicron with georgeous color-it has that APO Tele look, very rich and contrasty. If the new lens is any better, it certainly isn't going to be much better, as this lens has reached that point for me of "good enough".

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 26, 2001.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think Al hit the heart of the issue for all of us with our 90mm Elmarits and 135mm T-E. Under handheld normal shooting conditions, are the new APO versions clearly superior in both contrast and resolution? I think we would all love to hear from anyone who has done an A-B comparison (handheld) using the same roll of film and identical processing? In the mean time I think I will take Al's advice and start using my T-E more (it's a E39 version) and try to compare it against the R 100mm APO wide open. Watch this space...

Last question: Richard Hunecke in his book "M6 TTL" said that we should all try to get hold of the 135mm Tele Elmar 2.8 with the goggles if we can because of the more accurate focusing and framing. Yet Erwin Puts seems to think that this lens is noticeably significantly inferior to the latest APO Telyt, and possibly the T- E. Size and weight aside, how does the Tele Elmar compare with the T- E?

-- David (yeo_d@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001.


Just a point of clarification. The f/4.0 lens is called the Tele- Elmar. The f/2.8 lens (w/goggles) is called the Elmarit. f/4.0 lenses are Elmars. f/2.8 lenses are called Elmarits.

I personally don't like the Elmarit (w/goggles) because it gives you a tunnel-like view of things. Using the Tele-Elmar on an M3 or High- mag M6 works just fine. You could also use the new viewfinder magnifier on the other M's.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 27, 2001.


I put in a vote for the older long focus f/4 Elmar (the lens before the Tele-Elmar). Takes beautiful portraits and street shots. Probably lacks the microresolution capabilities of the new lenses for very particular landscape users, but wonderful for much else. Very cheap secondhand ($200).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Has Leitz ever made a bad 135mm lens?!? On a whim I bought an ugly 135/4.5 Hektor LTM for $60. After spending $30 for a CLA I shot a roll of 100 Gold at various apertures on my M3 with a Voigtlander adapter. I did not expect this 55 year old Hektor to be as good as the two T-E's I had and sold. Simply stunning! I don't use 135mm often with the M and this Hektor is just what I need.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), August 27, 2001.


I used to have a 135/4 Elmar and still have a late-model Hektor in screw-mount. Very nice lenses both, and both with tripod sockets (albeit, non-rotating).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 27, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ