Fred Miranda wrote:
Forgive me for the OT post as this is not related to the CV 75/1.5 but I'm shocked by the extreme corners of the Leica 135/4 Tele-Elmar at infinity distance. (hard stop on my lens)
Here it is WIDE OPEN. (See the image showng my lens version which I think it's from 1969!!!)
Weighs 504g (measured) - It's a steal for the price I paid ($250 in mint condition)
Two issues I have with the 4/135 Leica lens:
1. Veiling flare robs lots of the contrast and a hood barely helps (if at all).
2. What to shoot with these lenses? Too slow for portraiture (imho),
bad minimum focus distance rules out all the close focus applications.
What is left is landscape shooting, where this is not exactly my preferred focal length.
BastianK wrote:
Two issues I have with the 4/135 Leica lens:
1. Veiling flare robs lots of the contrast and a hood barely helps (if at all).
2. What to shoot with these lenses? Too slow for portraiture (imho),
bad minimum focus distance rules out all the close focus applications.
What is left is landscape shooting, where this is not exactly my preferred focal length.
Saul Leiter made wonderful street photographs with a 135.
BastianK wrote:
Two issues I have with the 4/135 Leica lens:
1. Veiling flare robs lots of the contrast and a hood barely helps (if at all).
2. What to shoot with these lenses? Too slow for portraiture (imho),
bad minimum focus distance rules out all the close focus applications.
What is left is landscape shooting, where this is not exactly my preferred focal length.
Sport mainly, occasionally landscape etc, as far as I'm concerned.
Gerry
May 03, 2020 at 08:25 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
BastianK wrote:
Two issues I have with the 4/135 Leica lens:
1. Veiling flare robs lots of the contrast and a hood barely helps (if at all).
2. What to shoot with these lenses? Too slow for portraiture (imho),
bad minimum focus distance rules out all the close focus applications.
What is left is landscape shooting, where this is not exactly my preferred focal length.
Interesting, because I always have liked your samples from this review:
In which I think you did a very nice job of using a 135 (albeit a faster one, with just a bit closer MFD) for some very interesting city shots. I think many of these shots could also be made with the Leica 135 f/4, some might not be quite as nice but not too far off.
In which I think you did a very nice job of using a 135 (albeit a faster one, with just a bit closer MFD) for some very interesting city shots. I think many of these shots could also be made with the Leica 135 f/4, some might not be quite as nice but not too far off.
Those ~1 1/2 stops make quite the difference to me, especially with busier backgrounds.
Many of the shots from the review would barely work with an f/4.0 lens.
Coming back to the 75mm 1.5: I prefer that one as a fast compact tele these days.
BastianK wrote:
Two issues I have with the 4/135 Leica lens:
1. Veiling flare robs lots of the contrast and a hood barely helps (if at all).
2. What to shoot with these lenses? Too slow for portraiture (imho),
bad minimum focus distance rules out all the close focus applications.
What is left is landscape shooting, where this is not exactly my preferred focal length.
When focusing on the rangefinder, I'm getting great success with slower lenses like the CV 50/3.5 and TE 135/4.
I don't see an issue with accuracy with wide angle lenses like the 35/1.2 even wide open though. However, if Leica updates the sensor to 47MP, any tiny miss focus could be more noticeable.
I mean, this lens is very sharp at MFD even wide open. Here are a couple samples at MDF @f/4:
BastianK wrote:
Those ~1 1/2 stops make quite the difference to me, especially with busier backgrounds.
Many of the shots from the review would barely work with an f/4.0 lens.
Coming back to the 75mm 1.5: I prefer that one as a fast compact tele these days.
I agree. The slower Leica is definitely not a specialized portrait lens. For that I always grab the 135/1.8 GM and take advantage of its amazing AF speed and accuracy.
I love the CV 75/1.5 as well but 135mm is a much different FOV and allows me to be further away from the subject. (Less facial distortion, etc.)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. The slower Leica is definitely not a specialized portrait lens. For that I always grab the 135/1.8 GM and take advantage of its amazing AF speed and accuracy.
I love the CV 75/1.5 as well but 135mm is a much different FOV and allows me to be further away from my subject. (Less facial distortion, etc.)
The Leica Tele Elmar 135/4 dates from a time when 135/2 lenses barely existed. It’s that old.
One of the benefits I read to M mount cameras. "Virtually any M-mount lens will fit an M-mount camera, so it's possible to purchase new lenses for any old Leica cameras and vice versa." -B&H
Since this thread is nominally about the Nokton 75, I'll say that it doesn't fit my portrait use case due to being too short and too fast. Okay, back to the Tele-Elmar. The TE135 has the perfect FL for head shots, and is fast enough because I always stop down to f/5.6-8 for acceptable DOF across the face.
Mounted on Nikon DSLR in Visoflex mode. Serves nicely for product shots, too:
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Your photos are stamped with a 2019 on the watermark. Just an FYI, not sure if you mind.
Thanks! I will update LR's Mogrify.
BTW: I added a +1 diopter to my M240's viewfinder and I'm getting pretty much 100% accuracy with the CV 75/1.5 now (all images above were using the rangefinder).
It looks like Leica sets the default diopter to "-0.5" at 2m distance. Reading glasses are measured at 1m so, it's a good rule of thumb to reduce the diopter add-on to half your reading glasses' prescription.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks! I will update LR's Mogrify.
BTW: I added a +1 diopter to my M240's viewfinder and I'm getting pretty much 100% accuracy with the CV 75/1.5 now (all images above were using the rangefinder).
It looks like Leica sets the default diopter to "-0.5" at 2m distance. Reading glasses are measured at 1m so, it's a good rule of thumb to reduce the diopter add-on to half your reading glasses' prescription.
Do you anticipate passing on that magnifier as a result?
d.s. wrote:
Do you anticipate passing on that magnifier as a result?
I have not received it yet. (It looks like it got lost or delayed in transit)
But I'm getting great accuracy with the right diopter when using the CV 75/1.5 and Leica 135/4.
Glasses have a prescription written for a distance of around 1m. Leica calculates their diopter's strength at two meters, so you only need half the strength or your current reading glasses and subtract the default "-0.5" built-in diopter from the final calculation.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have not received it yet. (It looks like it got lost or delayed in transit)
But I'm getting great accuracy with the right diopter when using the CV 75/1.5 and Leica 135/4.
Glasses have a prescription written for a distance of around 1m. Leica calculates their diopter's strength at two meters, so you only need half the strength or your current reading glasses and subtract the default "-0.5" built-in diopter from the final calculation.
Good info Fred! I don't use glasses, so I guess I won't benefit from a diopter, right?
