I just bought a 135 f/4.0 Tele-Elmar (39mm filter size) subject to approval. The glass is in great shape, but: the ring with the white dot that indicates the aperture setting is loose and can be removed, and the front element (the part that can be taken out and used in a Visoflex unit) doesn't seem to tighten firmly when it's reinserted into the 135 barrel. I'll have images to look at by next weekend, but I wonder whether these imperfections alone are enough to justify returning the lens. Anyone else have experience with this lens?

Thanks.

-- Richard E. Baznik (reb10@po.cwru.edu), May 18, 2002

Answers

Richard, the million dollar question is whether it focuses correctly. I had one for a week or so, and could not get one shot right. When I took it back to Ken Hansen they suspected that the focus problem results from the removable head, which might not adjust correctly after removal. if you have such a problem with the lense, you might not be able to focus correctly. try it at different distances, with tripod, make sure you focus well in an open aperture. if there is a problem with the focus you will see it. otherwise it is a great lense. I have now the 135 apo, and not sure I like the results more. I actually prefer the colors in the tele-elmar. but the pictures now are in focus...

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), May 19, 2002.

if it is not clear, you will see the focus problem on the prints, not by trying to focus... my lense always focused behind where I focused.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), May 19, 2002.

Hello Richard. Focus problems with this wonderful performing lense may not be common.However,the loose aperture setting is. Any,albeit slight error between where the removeable optical unit should sit in the focusing barrel when screwed home will show in your negatives.A lens collimation test will prove this however,correct focus is virtually impossible to correct (unless say,you use the the optical unit in a viso. setup. ) With these older detachable Tele Elmar units the lens number should be noted inside the focusing barrel.In practice,I was able to correct the slight error,not even an eighth turn at seating position of my lens, by winding black cotton inside the top section of the helicoid focusing grooves which changed the seat home position,then taking test negs to confirm correct focus.This is all trial and error and very trying in practice.The outcome: An aperture dot setting which is off centre,the fact that you can't remove the head without recalibrating and the possibility that unless seated firmly into place,this setting may move out of position.Perhaps no wonder late Tele Elmars with fixed heads attract a premium.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

Richard, along with the lens you are buying a heap of trouble. Take a pass on it. 135 T-E's are far from rare and most of them are in great shape.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

the ring on mine has detatched too. i can't figure how to refit it, so it's kept separate.

as for the head, i take it off the rare times when i need to clean the rear element. it always goes on tdc - top dead center - no problem. it focuses fine - sharp.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

Richard. My minimum standard for a user Tele-Elmar would be 1) clean glass (close to perfect, a few tiny hairlines or a small amount of dust are OK, no fungus, separation, fog); and 2) perfect mechanics. The 135/4.0 TE was a well constructed lens; and most of the units offered for sale do have perfect mechanics (aperture ring clicks into place sharply, focussing ring turns smoothly, etc.).

I agree that since this is not a rare or even hard to find lens (they were in production for roughly 30 years!), there is no reason for buying one that is problematic. This is not an expensive lens (by Leitz/Leica standards), so it is not worth buying one with a problem (s). I say thumbs down. [If this were a rare 50/1.2 Noctilux and you could save a lot of money because of a ring that needs tightening, my opinion might be different.]

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 19, 2002.