The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

90 Elamarit or 135 Tele Elamar

Moonshine

New member
Is there a big difference in the focal lengths in use? Aside from the f stop which is a better lens to take pictures with? For a m9
I know it's one of those questions but I really can't make up my mind here...
Thanks :)
 

CharlesK

New member
IMO the 90 Elmarit, as it is a very easy lens to focus and great ergonomics. The longer FL's, with the M9 become a lot more difficult to manage.
 

LCT

Member
No M9 sorry but from my experience with film Ms and M8.2 both Tele-Elmar 135/4 and latest Elmarit 90/2.8 are amongst the sharpest lenses in their focal length. The 135/4 is less easy to focus at f/4 than the Elmarit 135/2.8 (with goggles) unless one uses a magnifier with the former but it is a matter of getting used to it. Main difference will come from the field of view, the speed of the lenses and the size of the framelines, those for 135mm lenses being significantly smaller.
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
I own both 90 and 135mm for the M9.
135mm is sometimes nice for the reach and a vey nice lens but IMO 90mm is more flexible, easier to focus and also easier to frame. The 135mm frame in the viewfinder of the M9 is pretty small IMO.
 

Brian S

New member
If you go for the 135: buy a 1.25x magnifier for the M9. The 90, you can get away with out it. For the 135- just to magnify the framelines, well worth it. I use the 1.25x magnifier for the 90 and 105 as well.

With the Elmarit: are you looking at the "Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8" or the "Elmarit 90/2.8". Very different lenses.
 

Moonshine

New member
I'm looking at the Elmarit 90 2.8. I bought a 1.25 magnifier already.
Is there much difference in the reach between the two lenses?
 

Brian S

New member
The 135 for kids: gets rid of the Daddy factor, as in "Dad look at me!" that you might have with younger kids. More standoff, easier to get interaction between the kids without them noticing you with the camera "as much". So- a 135 at a playground, can be handy. There are a lot of very good vintage 135's that are cheap. For outdoor use, shooting at F5.6, do not overlook the 135/4.5 Hektor in M-Mount. It is cheap, usually ~$100, has lower contrast which looks good with an M9, and uses standard 39mm filters. It's fine for pictures of your kids at the beach, get a lens hood with it as well.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The 90 Elmarit-M is a very friendly size compared to the 135 too. I used this as part of my travel kit along with 24/35 or 50 luxes for a very portable outfit. The 90 is a great sharp lens and generally a very useful focal length. The 135 also is a super sharp lens but I found that I used it on only rare occasions vs the 90.
 
D

Daryl Ovadia

Guest
Now that you have the 90mm, consider buying an older (version 1) 135mm. Compared to other Leica lenses they are a bargain at $400 - $500, so sharp that a Leica salesman once said he didn't think the new Apo 135mm was worth an upgrade from version 1. The difference in focal length is significant enough to have both a 90 and 135. 135 framelines are larger that 1x when the 1.25x and 1.4x magnifiers are stacked, this makes framing as easy as a 50mm, no more tunnel view.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
I have both the Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 and Tele-Elmar-M 135mm f/4 and find them both to be very similar... The diameter is the same, though obviously the 135 is longer. Both are outstanding from wide open. The 90 used to be the killer bargain in the Leica lens line, but the M9 drove the prices up to maybe 1.5x in the past year and half (the 135 is still a bargain). I have no problems focusing and/or using them on the M8, M9 or with film.
 

LCT

Member
Sure it is. The version before the first Tele-Elmar is even cheaper. Was the Elmar 135/4. Great lens for travels as it is very light in spite of its tall length. But what a sharp lens indeed.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I have the last 135/4 model with the clip-on hood, and while a fine lens I wouldn't say it's all that sharp. It's borderline on the M9 at f/8 where mine peaks. It takes quite a bit of sharpening to bring out fine texture and I will probably eventually get the current APO. This is compounded by it being a lens used for reach, so it will pick up lots of haze. A 39mm Kasemann pola helps tremendously, but there goes any hope of handholding/leaning/bracing (and don't believe the B&H pages that say 1-2 stops; it's really 3-4 stops for distant objects). Because of the sharpening needed I don't recommend shooting this lens beyond ISO 200 on the M9. The T-E has lovely bokeh, rendering, and color, but it does lack slightly in texture definition.
 
Top