Leica M 90mm f/2.8 VS 135mm f/3.4! Throwing money at the wind

[Eiro]

Not sure if I will get a reply here, since our Leica section is not as busy as our MF section, but let's see. Feel free to chime.

Debating between the Leica M mount 90mm f2.8 (Elmarit) and the 135mm f3.4 (APO Telyt or the f4 Elmar) ? it will be on my 240.

I was set on 135mm a few days ago but then wondered maybe thats a little too long of a FL.
I have the 35/50 combo right now and was thinking of going with the 135 to complete the set, but now thinking maybe the 90mm will get more use, mainly because it gives me a bit more room to work with things I can capture.

If I go for the 135 it may be the APO or I might go for the cheaper f4 Elmar, they're very similar, not sure if one stop of light is really going to make much of a difference. Price sure does.

This is mostly for personal photography, some street photography, definitely travel, some family and friend shots, possibly could use it with an adapter for video on another body.

Let me know your thoughts. Also, you don't have to but if you've used both and have some sample images you wish to throw up and share, then knock yourself out.

If you believe this is a waste of a purchase feel free to state that as well.

Thanks

 

[glenerrolrd]

Based on your stated requirements ..this is an easy choice . The 90/2.8 Elmarit_M is extremely versatile and one of my most used lenses for street (after the 28/50 combination ). Wide open the lens is lower contrast and is exceptional for portraits . a beautiful aesthetic and plenty micro contrast . Stopped down to 5.6 is as good as you might need on a M body . The size and weight is small enough to easily carry in a jacket pocket .

The 90 sum micron has better overall image quality and is faster but the size is less comfortable . It does have a slightly longer throw and I find it easier than expected to focus accurately with the RF . Its only size that detracts from this lens. I enjoy using this lens but not carrying it . If you need to shoot a lot in low light and wide open ..this is the lens .

The 135 APO has exceptional image quality.... one of Leica s best lenses . You can carry it . Its weakness is its really hard to focus accurately and it has to be perfectly calibrated body and lens to use on a M . Took DAG three tries to calibrate my lens and body then of course I upgrade my M . I always use a VISO with this lens . There are times when you just need as much reach as you can carry . No fun to use but exceptional results ...best of the lenses mentioned .

But for street ,travel and family I prefer a lens I can carry and focus with the RF . I can dial in the desired lens contrast by stopping down or have the advantage of some softness and bokeh wide open . The 90/2.8 Elmarit_M has the traditional Leica character and renders beautifully .

 

[D&A]

There's not a lot I can add to Roger's comprehensive reply except to accentuate my own experiences with a number of lenses he's mentioned. My comments are predicated on the assumption that you're using a M camera that doesn't have live view...ie: film or one of the Leica M9 variants. Due to the small 135mm framing window, many who supposed that they would use the 135mm focal length, find that ultimately the lens is relegated to very occasional use unless the additional reach is absolutely necessary. With that said, I agree with Roger's experience of the difficulty of calibrating accurate focus of the 135mm f3.4 APO lens. I've tested quite a few copies of the lens and found almost all mis-focused on various M bodies I had that were perfectly calibrated for all other M mount lenses I used. I ultimately decided on the very last version of the 135mm f4 ( which looks eerily similar in cosmetics to the 135mm f3.4 , Strong rumors suggest it actually has APO glass or near APO qualities and when I had a chance to test both side by side (with a loaned copy of the 135mm f3.4 that focused accurately), the optics and performance were extremely close. The edge to clarity given to the 135mm f3.4 but I've own 3 samples of the last version of the 135mm f4 and each focused accurately without the need for calibration.

With all that aside, again I agree with Roger that the 90mm focal length is far more usable on a regular basis and it comes down to the two 90mm lenses Roger mentioned. The best all around for performance, the way it draws, handling/size would be the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit M (last version of Leica's 90mm f2.8 lenses). The 90mm f2 has the advantage of additional stop of speed and sharper at f2.8 that the Elmarit M but f4 has the two relatively close but whereas the 90mm f2 is simply bitingly sharp, often too sharp for certain subjects and a bit sterile, the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit M draws a lovely image and thus becomes a very versatile lenses for a wide variety of subjects. As an aside, I also found a number of samples of the 90mm f2.0 also mis-focused on perfectly calibrated M bodies. I cannot say for sure if this is a common attribute for this lens or not.

Dave D(D&A)

 

[pegelli]

Of your list I only have experience with the Elmarit 90/2.8 (1959 serial number) and Elmar 135/4 (1960 serial number), and use them on my M2 as well as (with an adapter) on non-Leica digital bodies.

On the digital bodies with focus magnification both are easy to nail focus just where you want it. Since you want to use them on a 240 maybe get a VF2 to check the accuracy of your rangefinder and achieve critical focus.

I agree with Roger the 90 mm is a more versatile focal length but my 135/4 has such a pleasing rendering (better than my 90/2.8, allthough that might just be down to personal taste) that I find it hard not to take it along and use it.
My 90/2.8 is a bit soft/glowy at f2.8 but nice sharpness as of f4, the 135/4 is sharp from wide open. I find neither of them "too bitingly sharp".

On my M2 the 135 is a bit of a pain, the rangefinder is small and getting the split image to accurately match takes practice and time. I've had misfocus more than once (understatement of the year) but when you hit it right I find it a wonderful lens to use. Other problem is that for framing a 135 mm lens on a M2 you need to switch from the rangefinder to a SHOOC (or something similar) to frame your shot, but I think on your 240 you will get 135 mm frame lines, even though the view on your subject/composition might be a bit small.

I don't think the purchase of a good lens is a waste, bodies come and go, lenses are forever and in my case I wouldn't want to be without both of them, granted the 90/2.8 was passed down from my father and I was extremely lucky to pick up the 135/4 for 80 € at an auction, so neither of these two lenses involved an expensive purchase.

 

[KeithDM]

I have used my 135mm APO Telyt on my M7 and M240 plus latterly on M10M. Have never felt the need to use an EVF on either of the digital bodies. Most of my photography is in the 21 to 50mm range with occasional 75 & 90 usage and even less use of the 135mm - but when I do use it I always end up thinking "why don't I use it more often"! When I do use it, it is generally for what I label 'long-range landscapes'. Plenty of examples from all three cameras can be seen here on my Flickr page.

With regard to a 90mm, some years ago I had the Elmarit-M but never really took to it - somehow the results never spoke to me and eventually I sold it. Some years later having added an R5 to the film side of things, one of the lenses I subsequently bought was a 90mm Elmarit-R (II) 11154 which I very much enjoy the results from (quite a heavy beast though at 450g). I also used it on M240 with R to M adaptor & EVF but it results in something of a heavyweight package and the M240's EVF is not the most inspiring of viewfinders. Anyway, earlier this year when Leica announced they were stopping production of the 90mm Summarit f2.4 and (taking advantage of a discount) I took the plunge and am enjoying both using it and the results. Most usage has been as a general walk-about lens in town and country.

As to the question of 90 or 135mm it really is a case of 'horses for courses'.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Each of the lens mentioned are great lenses . The key is matching your requirements to the lens with the right characteristics . Its really about "fitness for use" .

When we had a 2nd home In Florida ..the 135APO was a must have lens for the M . Around harbors ,water ,docks etc you simply can not get closer . The focus issues with RF are real not an exception . I spent quite a lot of time on this with DAG using multiple M bodies . He uses a reference chrome 50 sum micron to test his M body calibration . I bought one and had him match it exactly to his . The only thing that worked was sending both the body and the 135apo to him. He wold calibrate to the refrerence lens AND the 135. I lived on a street with mail boxes every 75 FT or so . I could focus test easily at near .medium and far distances .

You will have problems with RF calibration AND your focusing skills .

I have used the 135APO extensively for tennis and I have a lot of experience in using predictive focus points . You often can not take a larger camera into professional matches without a PRESS pass . Use F8 or f11 and work hard on your timing .

There is no doubt that the 135APO produces the most desirable image quality (all around of the lenses mentioned ). When you need the reach ...you can t beat it in M lenses . It is substantially easier to focus with an EVF but its still not easy . The lens throw ( around you have to turn the focus ring to adjust the focus point ). is short and its not made for quick precise changes .

Still with its limitations ..I take it on my street /travel trips ..often leaving it in the hotel safe until its needed . I am always happy when I bring it .

If I was shooting a lot of static subjects ..landscape,seascape etc it would also be a real asset to have along . For movement (kids ) good luck .

 

[glenerrolrd]

The 90/2.8 Elmarit_M has the older classic Leica rendering . It is softer and with smooth bokeh at f2.8 and f4 ....it is a great look for portraits or any subject where you want a softer look . I do not favor it for landscape unless you can stop down to F8 . For street I dial in the desired amount of bokeh ...need isolation and a smooth aesthetic ..use f2.8 ..need a crisp saturated look ..shoot at f5.6 or f8 . I like it best using color M s on good light days . It looks natural .

On a dull rainy day , at night when I expect soft defused light ..the 90 sum micron is much better . They often say Prague is a b&W street shooters dream lighting ..often cloudy and rainy . The 90 sum micron is much better .

The point being that you really have to consider your probable subjects, the light you will work with ,your skills and your budget . On a travel vacation you may encounter great variation which makes selecting the lenses for a trip always a best guess.

 

[Eiro]

Thank you for sharing the input guys. I was going back and forth and decided to go with the 135mm but thinking I may end up getting the 90 after all later on.
Interestingly enough,I've noticed limited amount of sample images by the 135mm online as opposed to 90mm, which gets me thinking the 135 is more of an acquired taste.
I can see the versatility in the 90mm though and price wise it's on point as well. I have an idea of how I want to use the 135, right away. Let's see how it fares going forward.

 

[250swb]

It makes a difference what camera you are going to be using but you keep that a secret. A 135mm is still on the cusp of being hit or miss with the rangefinder (composition wise) unless you have an EVF or LV, so yes, go for the 90mm Elmarit. If you do want a 135mm in the future buy an EVF and a cheap M/Nikon adapter (it only acts as a spacer, nothing 'mechanical') and get a 135mm Nikkor. In fact if you already have an EVF or would be using the camera with LV (on a tripod) get a M/Nikon adapter and the legendary 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor? The 135mm Elmar is still a fine lens by the way, but not quite as good as the Nikkor.

 

[pegelli]

It makes a difference what camera you are going to be using but you keep that a secret.

Not a secret at all, see the OP:

it will be on my 240.

 

[250swb]

Not a secret at all, see the OP:

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[JohnBrew]

135/4: really a great lens, probably under-rated. I used it on a film M and it performed fine. Back then I had no trouble with focusing. But it does protrude a bit much and there is nothing stealth about it. I have a 90 2.8 Elmarit-M which is pretty much glued to my M9P, 'nuff said.

 

[Shashin]

The traditional GetDPI answer is usually simple when considering two lenses--buy both!

 

[Paratom]

depends which focal length you prefer
135 frame is pretty small and the 135 not easy to focus.
I would prefer either 90/2.4 or 90/2.8 for the M over the lenses you listed.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I completely agree on all that has been said about the 90 Elmarit M and 135/3.4 APO Telyt after having owned and used both on M8 through M10. I found the 90 the most versatile for travel given it’s size vs the Summicron. I only had the 135 on pre-EVF M bodies and like others I had calibration issues with the rangefinder that only got fixed by shipping my entire M kit to DAG for calibration of body & lenses. With an M with EVF, so long as the 135 reaches infinity, living with it would be much easier than it was before.

 

[JoelM]

Honestly, the only thing these have in common in the M mount. I don't believe that one replaces the other so which one is a question regarding your preferences for tele shots. I've used both and they are both worth having. I would buy the 90 first and save for the APO. I sold my APO and bought, years later, a 135 f4 as recommended above. Highly underrated optically, but yes, it isn't covert.
Joel

 

[Shashin]

BTW, if you are unsure about whether you will use a longer focal length on your camera, but would like one for travel, etc, you could also consider the Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 that was designed for the Minolta/Leitz CLE. The Minolta version is multicoated. It is also a very compact lens, which is easy to travel with. It is also reasonable. Just a thought.

 

[Paratom]

Another vote for 90mm, as beautiful lens the 135/3.4 (or4.0) is, the 135 is hard to focus.
So for portrait etc. on the M I would prefer 90mm, either ELmarit, or 90 Summarit, or maybe the 90/4.0 which is super nice copact and gives you a nice close distance option, but its bokeh is not as smooth as the other 2.
In case you decide for 135 anyways I have a 135/3.4 which I plan to sell,

 

[Godfrey]

On an M, although I've occasionally used 135mm lenses, I much prefer 90 or even 75 mm focal lengths. I'd go with one of the 90mm lenses, of what you list in the poll.

(For longer M-mount focal lengths, I mostly use a pretty new Summitar-M 75mm f/2.4. My current M-mount 90mm is an M-Rokkor 90/4, identical and made on the same production line as the Elmar-C 90mm. Lovely, tiny lens.

My current M-mount 135mm is an ancient Hektor 135/4.5—a much maligned lens that actually performs remarkably well now that TTL viewing and focusing, and sensors with clean rendering at ISO 3200, are available to work with it. It is also remarkably light and inexpensive... Worked very nicely on my M9, better on my M240/M262, and continues to work very well indeed on the APS-C digital CL and Micro-FourThirds bodies from Olympus and Panasonic... An incredible performer that cost me less than $200. )

G

 

[spb]

Sounds like a bargain!