I find myself with a small abundance of riches at this year end and thought about investing it in the 135/3.4 APO-Telyt-M while the rebate is still on. I welcome any and all views on the lens. PS Best wishes for the holidays. Peace to us all.

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 17, 2001

Answers

I've had one for a year or so. I think it's probably the best general-purpose 135 that's ever been made for a 35mm camera.

That said, I have several demurrals.

According to owners of the older lens, it isn't any better in actual use than the older 135/4.0 Tele-Elmar-M. That lens is reputed to be essentially apochromatic without being identified as such. I have no idea, never having used the older lens. That lens is available used at a pitiful fraction of the cost of a new Telyt.

It's still a 135. It's damn hard to use on an M, though a .85 M6 with a 1.25x eyepiece magnifier makes it much easier.

If you're OK with using a 135 on an M, and you want assurance that there is no better lens out there, by all means get it. I purchased one during an embarassment of riches last year, and my Nikkor 180 has seen scant use since then.

I can even take pictures like this with it.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), December 17, 2001.

I use the older 135mm Elmar f4.0.Always use the hood. It is very sharp and contrasty and that indefinable "roundness" in portraits.Colors are beautiful.Speed not great but way ahead of most zooms as usable at max aperture.Due to ltd depth of field,take care in focus.M3 and 0.85 Leicas best.I have wonderful seascapes,infinity and some portraits done on M2 ! guessed the frame based on 90mm. Purchase used,as at very good prices as not desisable by collectors. Thank goodness.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), December 17, 2001.

I don't have the APO, but I have the immediate predecesser and I can second that it is a superb lens. Like Paul mentioned, I too feel it is a viable replacement for the 180 on my SLR. The lens is very sharp and contrasty, and reasonably easy to focus. I can only surmise the APO is even beter, although it is hard to imagine.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 17, 2001.

I had the last-version 135/4 Tele-Elmar (with pull-out hood and E46 filter), sold it, added $600 and bought the 135/3.4 APO-Telyt sight- unseen based on the reports of a certain famous "Leica Lens Tester" now a famous author of a book on Leica Lens Tests. I kept my E39 version of the 135/4 for sentimental reasons, and when the APO arrived I tested them both side-by-side on Kodachrome 25, on a tripod, at all apertures, at infinity, 10m and 1.5m with both flat subjects and "real life" scenes. My conclusions were that the APO- Telyt was clearly superior--at f/3.4. So from my experience I would day that if the 1/2-stop is a make-or-break issue for you, by all means get the APO. Otherwise, you can find a mint E39 version 135/4 Tele-Elmar for at least $1000 less than a new APO, which is enough to get another really good Leica lens--like a 35/2ASPH or 90/2.8.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 17, 2001.

I don't own any M 135 right now, but have tried most of them. I generally agree with the concensus that the 3.4 APO is at most a minor improvement over the previous f/4 (which was, according to some gurus, the best lens in the whole Leica M lineup for raw image quality prior to the new crop of designs).

The APO 135 3.4 has VERY good handling, and feels a little smoother to operate in my hands. Buying it new you'll get the rebate, the passport warranty, 1/2 stop of speed and some satisfaction of ownership. Whether that's worth the extra $700-$1000 sounds like your call.

If I recall correctly you work mostly with 24 and 90. The 135 seems like a reasonable addition - BUT - if you're just looking for something NEW to buy quick before the rebates run out you might consider a lens that offers more improvement over what's available used, for the money. E.G. (if you don't already own one!) the 35 f/1.4 or some such. You might even have enough left over for an older-style 135 as well - I've seen the 39mm ones (60's-70's) for $400-$500 or so.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 18, 2001.

Although I don't think I ever managed to finish reading one of his reports, there is a report from Erwin Putts on various 135mm M lenses. And guess what: The latest is the bestest.

Xavier

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), December 18, 2001.

I have the 135mm/f4 Tele-Elmar. It is of APO quality! That's why I have never considered buying the Telyt!...................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), December 18, 2001.

Eve,

if your funds are o.k. and you have to have the very best glass go for the new apo lens.

But if you donīt long for the dernier crie consider the Tele Elmar 4/ 135 mm. This lens is brillant even wide open and it is sold for reasonable prices s/h. I used mine for 20 odd years and it did a very good job. The lens handles well, and you could also utilize the lenshead for your VISOFLEX. This is not possible with the latest lens.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 18, 2001.

Eve

In my opinion, the 135/3.4 Telyt is not a good investment. Among the best "bargains" available in Leica lenses is the 135/4.0 Tele-Elmar, the older version with the clip on lens hood. This lens is nearly apochromatic, outstanding even at f/4.0, and is available in nice condition at diret cheap prices ($ 350-550, depending upon condition, presence of hood+caps, box, etc.).

Although this lens is virtually as good as the 135/3.4, it is so much cheaper as to make the latter a "bad" investment. Generally speaking, 135 mm lenses are the least preferred by Leica M users, so they go down in value quickly and are readily available on the used market. If history is any guide, the 135/3.4 will soon be worth far less than the new lens price.

The fact is you would have to try very hard to generate better images with the 135/3.4 than with the Tele-Elmar. The only real difference is the one-half stop advantage for the Apo-Telyt. Save your money and buy another M lens with the difference.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 18, 2001.

Well, it's hard to argue with the optical fact that the 135/3.4 APO-Telyt-M is probably the sharpest, most contrasty 135 mm lens ever made.

You'll be able to realise this superb performance if you bolt your leica to a very sturdy tripod each time you use it. However, if you hand hold (gasp!) and swing the camera by a scant 10 arc seconds (that's around 20 times greater than the resolving power of the human eye!)* and equivalent to moving the front of the lens relative to the film by 6 microns, your image, with it's superb 150 lines per millimeter resolution, just became a "paltry" 75 lines per millimeter.

My own solution to the problem is to use the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit. The f/3.4 is superior optically to the Elmarit, but that greater than half stop of extra shutter speed is a superb lens sharpener! At f/8 or so. bolted to a tripod, both lenses are superb. The down side of the Elmarit is the silly "eyes" it comes with, which cut down on the field of view (one of the big advantages of the rangefinder world), are easily knocked out of allignment, and seriously compromise the lenses' portability. It's probably the least used of all my lenses, but there are times when it excells. *The human eye can resolve points around 3 arc minutes apart.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), December 18, 2001.