The Underrated M-135/2.8

I'd imagine that the Canon 135/2.5 would cost less.

Mitch, I tend to agree. I had both versions and recently sold the 134/3.4 keeping the 135/2.8. I don't use a 135 on an M very often (mostly at weddings) so the extra speed and easier focusing won out over size considerations. My 135/2.8 is a very late model and has improved lens coatings compared to the 135/2.8 I had years ago.

Focusing is really accurate with the lens mounted on an 0.85 body. But I tend to use the lens on a M5.

I'm not so sure I agree that the 135/3.4 isn't crisper. But the way I use the 135/2.8 the marginal difference is meaningless.

I like my two M-135s. When passing through streets and looking for details or nice portraits the goggled 2,8 is wonderful, though ist big and heavy. But on journeys I prefer my Tele-Elmar 4,0 - 135. Changing lenses is easier and it is a better team together with 21 and 35. If you need better framing, ever thought of using the new viewfinder magnifier M 1.25x? Very useful - even on a M3.

If I am walking around with nothing in particular in mind, I prefer one of the more pocketable 135s. If I am going to shoot in low light, I bring the 135/2.8.

For years I dragged around a 135/4 Tele-Elmar and almost never used it. I would also take a Leicaflex SL with a 180/2.8 Elmarit when I thought I needed the extra length. When I ended up getting a 135/2.8 Elmarit with a bunch of other stuff from an estate sale a couple years ago I discovered that it was as sharp as I need, even if cropped to the 180's coverage. I sold all my Leicaflex and R gear as well as the 135/4 TE. I do miss being able to use 39mm filters on the 135, but rarely use filters anyway.

I tested 5 135's (1956 Hektor, 1960 Elmar, 1975 T-E, 1989 135/2.8, 1999 135/3.4). From f/5.6 the Elmar, T-E and Elmarit are all about equal. The Hektor catches up at f/8. At f/4 the T-E and APO are equal and easily out-class the others (Hektor is a 4.5). At f/3.4 the APO drowns the Elmarit in terms of contrast, and is visibly better (as Erwin would say) "off axis" but the Elmarit isn't that bad, it's just that the APO is that good.

IMO for a travel lens I wouldn't give the Elmarit a passing thought. An EOS Rebel and the 135/2.8 SF weighs less than the Elmarit alone, and gives reflex viewing. The T-E's sell for about 2/3 of an Elmarit, I'd use the difference to get the 1.25x magnifier and have a much more portable kit. The Elmarit is a good option for Marc's use, for weddings perhaps.

There's nothing wrong with the 135/2.8, but its size puts off most M users. For portraits its a good one, but you cannot shoot the thing focussed at infinity, say for landscapes at f2.8-4 and expect it to really sparkle - the APO sparkles at f3.4 and the TE does at f4. But if you are shooting people then it works very well. You will need to stop the 135/2.8 down to f5.6 to get very nice performance all over. It is all very dependent on the subject matter you are photographing too whether this is a big deal or not.

>>> If you need better framing, ever thought of using the new viewfinder magnifier M 1.25x? Very useful - even on a M3<<<

I have the 1.25x magnifier and don't like it at all: it results in a darkening or reduction in contrast of the viewfinder image that defeats the purpose of the magnification; and I've stopped using it.

It is big (and stiff, and heavy), but I've got nothing bad to say about the job it does.

Yep, I like it, too - notwithstanding the size, weight, and long focus throw.

How about a prickly pear, instead?

"It is big (and stiff, and heavy)."

Umm, are you referring to a lens, or have I stumbled into the wrong forum?

I use the 135 Tele-Elmar on the M (preferably on my M3); and the 135 Elmarit on my R6. I understand that the latter is optically equivalent to the goggled 2.8M lens. Well, I have no problem with its performance in actual practice, though I haven't bothered to compare it to the Tele-Elmar. An informal impression, not based on side-by-side comparison of the same subjects, is that the Tele-Elmar is a bit contrastier. But the 2.8 is a very competent lens. My color slides with it lack for nothing.

So the short statement is, I agree, it's a very good lens, certainly better than the 135 Nikkor I once had for my F.

Having used the 135/4 T.E., 135/3.4 APO and early and late 135/2.8 lenses, I prefer the late 135/2.8 for two reasons: sharpness and focusing accuracy, both of which go hand in hand. The slower 135's were tack sharp but only if RF calibration was dead on and focusing was very critical. Aside from the magnifying goggles, both 135/2.8's can be easily "tweaked" by the user for precise focus callibration using the vertical and horizontal adjustment screws on the side of the round goggle assuming the camera's RF adjustment is correct. It cannot be overstated enough that to get the best out of any lens over 50mm that focus callibration should be dead on especially high speed telephotos. What I like about the goggles is the ability to independently callibrate lens RF accuracy if I know my camera's RF is accurate. The later 135/2.8 is noticably better of the two due to impoved contrast and has a more robust goggle construction. Having said this, I would rate the 135/3.4 or 135/4 as best overall PROVIDED that the RF coupling was exact and a HM or M3 viewfinder was used in conjuntion with the 1.25x magnifier due to compactness and a trace improvement in sharpness. Keep in mind though that the 135/2.8's benefits from the same setup giving you even better focusing accuracy in poor lighting than the other lenses.