135mm Elmar resolution test

Leica, Lenses

A special lens – when properly tuned.

For an index of all Leica-related articles click here.


The 135mm f/4 Elmar on my Leica M10.
The auxiliary finder is for a 21mm lens.

I profiled the 135mm f/4 Leitz Elmar lens here. Read that piece to learn how to properly align your rangefinder to have this lens perform at its best. It’s a critical step which, if avoided, will have you blaming an excellent optic for unsharp results.


A 2mm Allen wrench is used to adjust the cam follower for optimum focus.

Explanation of which direction to turn the Allen screw adjuster: If the sharpest point in the LR magnified image is further than where you focused, then the focus point must be brought nearer, meaning you turn the Allen screw adjuster away from you, with the camera resting as in the above image. If the sharpest point in the LR magnified image is nearer than where you focused, then the focus point must be set further away, meaning you turn the Allen screw adjuster towards you, with the camera resting as in the above image. Take it easy with those adjustments – just a couple of degrees’ movement will shift the dice point noticeably.

The 135mm focal length, especially used at large apertures and/or close focus distances, is really stretching the rangefinder accuracy of the Leica M to its limit. To get the best (definition) bang for your buck I suggest that a 135mm Elmar plus a good finder magnifier beats the costlier 135mm Tele-Elmar with no magnifier, the outlays being roughly identical. What the Elmar lacks in contrast compared with its costlier successor is easily made up with a tweak or two in Lightroom. The Elmar lacks little when it comes to micro-contrast and resolution of fine details. An additional investment in sweat equity (and a 2mm Allen wrench) will see to it that your rangefinder is perfectly adjusted and that focus error will not be the cause of unsharp results.

How far is ‘infinity’ as marked on the lens? It’s much further than you might think. In the test images below, the car’s registration plate is exactly 82 yards away from the camera, whereas the roof at the top right is 125 yards distant. There is a clear difference, per the rangefinder, between 82 yards and 125 yards. At 125 yards the lens is indeed set to infinity.

Stated differently, if you want to insure that when the lens is at infinity the subject is also at infinity, your subject must be 125 yards or more distant from the camera. That’s a long way off. At 82 yards and 100% pixel peeping at full aperture the depth of field is no more than 4 feet fore and aft of the registration plate of the car in these images. That’s as good an illustration of how critical focus is with a lens this long, used with a Leica rangefinder, as I can conceive of. It also shows what an extraordinary feat of mechanical/optical engineering the Leica rangefinder is to this day, and has been since the first M3 in 1954.

Here are the test images taken at all apertures from f/4 down to f/22 – the M10’s lens code is set to ‘135mm f/2.8 Elmarit’, which is the best choice. The lens is so distortion and vignetting free that there is no need to use a lens correction profile in LRc when processing images. These images are SOOC, and I used a monopod to minimize camera shake.



Test images from f/4 to f/22. The apertures shown are incorrect.

You can view all 8 images in medium size by clicking here.

To view full size 22mb originals click here. It’s a large file so be patient when downloading. You can zoom in on these to your heart’s content.

Conclusions?

  • Hard to focus correctly using the rangefinder at full aperture and/or short subject distances. Focus accuracy benefits meaningfully when used with a 1.4x finder magnifier
  • No flare or distortion at any aperture.
  • At f/4 the whole frame is usable and will easily make a large print with excellent resolution if focus is correct.
  • Micro contrast is excellent at any aperture.
  • There is little change in resolution hereafter through and including f/22. If there’s any diffraction at the smallest aperture it’s nearly impossible to see.
  • Peak definition is reached at f/5.6 but there’s very little to choose between any aperture from f/4 to f/22.
  • No meaningful color fringing at the edges of the frame at any aperture. The camera is coded as a Leitz f/2.8 135mm Elmarit-M which delivers the best result of the three coding options for 135mm lenses in the M10’s firmware. Absent machining the lens cannot itself be 6-bit coded unless you buy the rarer LTM version and use a 6-bit LTM-to-M bayonet adapter.
  • There is no LRc lens correction profile available so I use the one for the 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-M. The only noticeable difference is correction of extremely minor pincushion distortion, but it’s not really necessary other than in architectural photos taken straight on.

By the way, disregard the f-stop data in the EXIF information. The M10, even with 6-bit coding adapter, does a poor job of estimating the aperture used. (There is no electrical or mechanical link between the lens’s aperture setting and the camera, so Leica estimates the aperture based on the shutter speed and ISO used). Go by the file names, moving the decimal point in the last three digits one place to the left to see the aperture used. So, for example ‘110’ means f/11.

So which is better – the Canon 135mm f/3.5 LTM at $150 shipped from Japan or the Leitz 135mm f/4 Elmar at $260 shipped within the US? Both are bargains, but the Elmar is clearly better at all apertures and requires no amendments to the focus cam to properly align with the cam follower in the camera’s throat. There is no flare at any aperture and micro contrast is notably better at all apertures. Is the difference night and day? No. But if you make selective crops and big prints the Elmar is the one to choose, at a $110 premium, and abundantly available from domestic sellers. In summary, this 1960 optic is outstanding in every way. (Made from 1960 through 1965, the Elmar was replaced by the physically shorter but heavier Tele-Elmar. Most tests suggest the Tele-Elmar offers little optical improvement and, boy, it has an appearance only a mother could love).

Here’s the Elmar at its very best:


Click for a bigger version. Check the definition in the glass
globe and wall stickers in the big version.

The Light Lens Lab 1.4x finder magnifier for the Leica M

Leica

Handy.

For an index of all Leica-related articles click here.



The magnifier in place on the M10. 21mm finder atop.

When Ernst Leitz released the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit lens for the Leica M body in 1963 they concluded that the only way this long and fast lens could be accurately focused using the rangefinder was with auxiliary magnifying ‘goggles’, which came attached to the lens. They even contemplated a 180mm focal length with like goggles for use on the M but common sense prevailed and that lens was never released.



Leitz’s whopper, the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit, goggles and all.

Some five decades later it finally occurred to the factory that a simple eyepiece magnifier would do the trick with less bulk, weight and cost. Well, less bulk and weight. This is Leica after all. So they released two eyepiece magnifiers in 1.25x and 1.4x strengths. Better fasten your seat belt before checking the prices. And to add insult to injury, you have to pony up an obscene additional $118 for an adapter to allow the magnifier to screw into the larger eyepiece which was fitted to the M10 and later models.

When I published a resolution test for the fine 135mm f/3.5 Canon LTM lens I wrote:

The 135mm focal length, especially used at large apertures and/or close focus distances, is really stretching the rangefinder accuracy of the Leica M to its limit. In such cases I advocate using ‘bracketing focus’ – one image nearer than seems right, one at the best apparent rangefinder setting and one too far if you want assurance of peak resolution. With digital that’s a realistic approach. With film reckon on $45 for 3 snaps with one sharp one …. Alternatively there are both 1.4x Leica aftermarket viewfinder magnifiers ($250 used) or aftermarket variants ($100) which enhance rangefinder resolution, but having to screw one into the eyepiece every time you take a picture seems like a royal pain. Further, you will barely be able to see the 50mm frame lines with the magnifier fitted and the 35mm ones will not be visible. So removal is the order of the day if you mount either focal length.

Well, I stand corrected, having just bought the Light Lens Lab 1.4x eyepiece magnifier from the US distributor, Popflash Photo. You can buy it from China on eBay for less but whether tariffs will allow it to get through is unknown.

The shipping box contains:

  • The 1.4x magnifier
  • Two identical rubber eyecups
  • The thread adapter for use on the M10 and later bodies
  • A screw on rear protective cover

My shipped cost was $163 compared with $600 for the Leica version with adapter ring.

The LLL magnifier includes +/- 3 diopter corrections (missing from the Leica version) using a rotating ring to which the eyecup attaches. This is good for users of corrective lenses but bad as the focus motion is far too loose, at least on my sample, but that is easily cured. (Do the makers ever actually use their product?) After dialing in the diopter adjustment for maximum resolution I simply cut a small piece of electrical tape and taped it around the rubber base of the eye cup and the abutting metal ring – they are flush so in practice the fix is invisible, and reversible. It would have been nice if the magnifier offered a flip up feature when not in use, but I suppose that’s too much to ask.

Fit and finish are excellent – all glass and metal, plus the rubber eyecup. I measure the inside eyepiece diameters of the respective cameras as follows:

  • Leica M3 and all models through the M262/240 digital bodies – 11.42mm
  • Leica M10 and later digital bodies – 13.51mm

That makes the tiny adapter ring just 1mm wide. Don’t lose it!

You have two choices in fitting this adapter ring – tight on the camera, in which case the screw on protective cover will fit on the magnifier when removed, or tight on the magnifier in which case the rear cover is useless. I went for the latter, preferring to keep the camera stock for eventual resale. The adapter ring has notches for a lens tool but I found that a clean handkerchief did the trick just fine.



The rear lens does not protrude so the absence
of a protective cover when removed is not an issue.
The notched adapter ring – arrowed – is installed in this image.

The magnifier with adapter requires 2 1/4 turns to fit on the M10 and is extremely unlikely to unscrew accidentally if snugged up nicely in the first place. I added a white ink index dot to designate the start point for engaging the thread when the adapter is being attached to the camera’s eyepiece. Yes, it’s still a pain to use because the 50mm frame is not fully visible without ‘pan and scan’ action from the user so for any lens shorter than 75mm the magnifier has to be removed if the finder frames are to be fully visible and easily used. With my 21mm lens no removal is needed as I have a 21mm finder fitted in the accessory shoe.



The thread index starting point white ink dot.
This is placed on the electrical tape which locks the diopter setting.
It minimizes risk of dropping when being attached.
The magnifier protrudes in this image as it has not been screwed into the eyepiece.

How is the optical performance? I see no distortion of the view or of the frame lines for the 75, 90 and 135mm lenses. Everything is bright and clear. It’s a quality product. Here are the finder magnifications with the magnifier fitted for the four different Leica M finder designs:

  • 0.58x finder (wide finder versions of the MP, etc.) appears to be 0.81x
  • 0.72x finder (M2, M4, etc.) appears to be 1.01x – life size
  • 0.73x finder (M10, M11) appears to be 1.02x – life size
  • 0.91x diner (M3) appears to be 1.27x – huge!

How well does it work? I used my ‘bookcase at 45 degrees to the camera’ test, with the M10 on a tripod. The focus point is indicated by the red line and the result is bang on. Images are examined in Lightroom using 100% magnification, equivalent to a 72″ wide print using a 32″ monitor. Why not simply examine images on the camera’s LCD display using magnification? Because the resolution of that display is nowhere near that of a large computer monitor using Lightroom. There are no short cuts here if you want perfection.



Focus test with the 135mm Elmar at maximum aperture of f/4.
The red line indicates where I focused. 7.5 feet from the camera.
Click the image for a big version.

As is clearly visible the depth of field at this distance, focal length and aperture is just 1″. I tried the same test without the magnifier fitted and nailed focus just one time out of three. With the magnifier I was spot on every time. The point is that an accurately adjusted rangefinder is more than up to it but sans magnifier my eyes – and maybe yours – are not.

When does this gadget add value? With any super fast lens, regardless of focal length – meaning f/1.4 or faster for 50mm and shorter, or f/2 or faster with a 90mm lens and with any 135mm lens – all when used at or close to maximum aperture and shorter focus distances. In all instances depth of field is very shallow which is when the magnifier comes into its own.

A key prerequisite is that your rangefinder is correctly adjusted in the first place, according to this illustration:


A 2mm Allen wrench is used to adjust the cam follower for optimum focus.

Explanation of which direction to turn the Allen screw adjuster: If the sharpest point in the LR magnified image is further than where you focused, then the focus point must be brought nearer, meaning you turn the Allen screw adjuster away from you, with the camera resting as in the above image. If the sharpest point in the LR magnified image is nearer than where you focused, then the focus point must be set further away, meaning you turn the Allen screw adjuster towards you, with the camera resting as in the above image. Take it easy with those adjustments – just a couple of degrees’ movement will shift the dice point noticeably.

Light Lens Lab is an interesting Chinese company, seemingly catering to the locals’ fascination with 1960s Leitz products. Witness their near perfect knock-off of the 50mm Type 2 Leitz Summicron of that era, albeit at a very high price. Still, that remains one of the most beautiful – and optically alluring – lenses of the past century, and imitation is the sincerest form of lfattery.

the Light Lens Lab 1.4x magnifier is recommended for those with the special needs it addresses.

The Leica M10 1,000 snaps later

Leica

Happy, yet troubled.

For an index of all Leica-related articles click here.




Here’s a slideshow of 36 favorites from that opening salvo of 1,000.
36? Why, that’s the length of a roll of Kodachrome ….
Click the image to download the slideshow – it takes a while.

It has been a couple of months since I bought a used Leica M10 digital body, adding a selection of inexpensive and uniformly excellent lenses since. My return to the Leica M fold was after a 20 year hiatus, that in turn was preceded by 35 mostly happy years with the Leica M3 film body.

So what prompted this costly move? And we cannot proceed without admitting that when it comes to digital M ownership the elephant in the room is the price of entry, new or used. While a decent film M2 or M3 can be had for $1,500 reckon on $4,500 for an unmolested M10 and $6,000 or more for an M11. To put that in perspective my near mint Nikon D800 body cost $500 and came with a sensor every bit as good, including autofocus and anti-shake in the two AF-S lenses I favor, the 16-35mm and the 28-300mm. And when it comes to robustness and color rendering, there is little to choose between the marques. Forget all that talk of the ‘Leica look’ in images from an M. That’s just confirmation bias from owners contemplating the reduced status of their pocketbooks.

Well, I suppose the answer was that I wanted to relive the past, in part, for that first 35 years of M use saw me migrate from ingenue kid to seasoned snapper and, until the relatively affordable Canon 5D came along, a snapper more or less happy with film as a recording medium. Published work and prizes galore defined the early years of M3 ownership though once I started making a real living the desire for those faded. And the 5D changed everything. Resolution and the ease of image manipulation both jumped an order of magnitude and, best of all, the seemingly interminable wait for the return of results was no more. Plus there’s something really rather dumb about using an analog medium like film then having to have it scanned to share results. You think you are using ‘film’? How about a Noritsu scanner? Your work still becomes digital, if rather slowly. And as age increases every remaining hour is scarcer, and waiting is not a good thing. I really would prefer to see my snaps before I croak.

However, Leica, late to the game and having lost the professional market to Nikon, Canon and the upstart Sony (née Minolta), decided to reposition the M as an aspirational, luxury Veblen good and the wisdom of that decision is reflected in its recent record financial results. Realistically, the digital Leica M has no competition when it comes to design and function. But the realization dawns that once upon a time the film rangefinder Leica was the fastest way of focusing a lens. Now in the digital age, it is the slowest. But it still works for me.

And aesthetics and design integrity cannot be denied here. I have always maintained that a good tool makes you a better operator, be it a Starrett T square or caliper which make you a better carpenter, a Porsche which makes you a better driver or a Leica which makes you a better photographer. Each is beautiful in its own way. The happy result is that you feel duty bound to try and do justice to these long-evolved machines and, let’s face it, the Leica M is a thing of quite special beauty. The severe Bauhaus lines owe nothing to the mess of the Barnack Leica era with its plethora of knobs, buttons and protrusions and the Nikon F’s brutal lines certainly copied nothing from the M3. Today the amorphous blobs from the Japanese all start looking alike, all are immensely capable, are invariably tremendous value at their many price points and …. lack character.

Now there’s character and there’s character. In a British sports car character is defined by a reluctance to start and often a greater one to proceed. That’s not good character. That’s schlocky engineering. But Leica has been refining the M body since the M3 of 1954 and, while their first stumbles into digital were disappointing, with the M10 they finally got the size and shape back to M3 and M2 dimensions and, goodness, absent the film winding lever, the camera feels and almost sounds like that M3 of yore. And that inspires me mightily to try and do it justice for in the history of twentieth century cameras three defined the medium – the original Leica I, the M3 and the Nikon F. The M3 poses a mighty legacy to aspire to.

Today exposure automation in the M10, first seen in the film M7, is greatly welcomed. Sure IBIS would be nice but technology must shrink further before the M body can accommodate it. It’s a good bet it will eventually. As for auto-focus, forget it. Have you seen the size of lenses which have it? (Contax made a magnificent effort decades ago by moving the film plane instead of the lens to achieve AF, but again the question remains whether the svelte M body can accommodate that technology. One can but dream.) And there’s a special pleasure to using the M rangefinder which is, if anything, further improved over the already stellar design in the M3 and M2. A switchable internal auxiliary magnifier, in lieu of the clunky screw in separate eyepiece, would be welcome for use with fast 90mm and any 135mm lens, but again that body is already so tightly packed it may be asking too much.

But there’s no denying there’s an undeniable tactile and aural pleasure to using the M10 and I confess to a frisson every time I release the shutter. That alone (almost) makes the high cost of entry (almost) bearable. Almost.

In the opening I stated “Happy, yet troubled”, for the simple reason that there’s something rather obscene about spending almost $5,000 on a used camera body when competent alternatives can be had for a fraction of that amount. However, I console myself that with the cost of a 36 exposure roll of film, processed and scanned, now approaching $50, with 1,000 exposures under my belt I have recovered almost 50% of the $3,000 cost premium over the film body. Another 1,000 exposures or so and I’m ahead of the game ….

135mm Leitz Elmar – some results

Architecture, Leica, Lenses, Photographs

An excellent lens for very little.

For an index of all Leica-related articles click here.

Sharp with excellent micro-contrast even at full aperture, this 65 year old Leitz 135mm f/4 Elmar lens is excellent for capturing architectural details and street candids, though the latter can be a real challenge given the lens’s demand for correct focus, which can take time with the long throw focus collar.

Some examples snapped yesterday – architecture first. Five of these can be clicked for a much larger version:




Click for a bigger version. Note that even focused close to infinity
at f/8 the lens delivers very shallow depth of field.



Click for a bigger version. Check the definition in the glass
globe and wall stickers in the big version.



Click for a bigger version.


Click for a bigger version.






Click for a bigger version

And some candids – all were cropped from one quarter of the 24mp RAW file, making the focal length equivalent to 270mm. Unlike, say, with a 21mm or 35mm focal length, ‘spray and pray’ is not a winning strategy with the 135mm. Careful handholding and accurate focus are the order of the day:



Sure hope they like those tattoos, because
they are stuck with them for life.


Another tattoo freak. The camera was panned to
enhance background blur.


Taking in the sun.

The resolution is as good as anything money can buy and the main caveat is that, without solid technique and a properly adjusted rangefinder (check the link in the opening paragraph, above), results will be disappointing.

Five cheap lenses for the Leica M

Leica, Lenses

Great bargains.

For an index of all Leica-related articles click here.

Background:

This piece summarizes the specifications, costs and modifications made to my recently acquired kit of five lenses, ranging from 21mm to 135mm, for the Leica M10. They are every bit as usable on film M bodies. Well, some of the time. Two or three are from Canon (depending on your 135mm choice), one or two are from Leitz (ditto) and one is from Voigtländer. With the exception of the 21mm Voigtländer Color-Skopar VM Aspherical all are over 50 years old and the average cost was under $400. That’s chump change compared with what Leica’s contemporary optics command on either the new or used market.



The Leica M10 outfit. The 21mm lens is on the camera with its auxiliary finder.
135mm Leitz Elmar not shown.

Dispelling a myth:

I keep reading that ‘modern digital sensors out resolve older lenses’. This is a meaningless statement. Out resolve compared with what? I can state from experience that every one of these lenses delivers much higher and finer grained resolution on the M10’s 24mp sensor than even the best technique used with a film M body and fine grained Kodak Ektar 100. Further, the Ektar is so slow it is very likely that camera shake will be added to the image owing to the need for longer, resolution-destroying shutter speeds. When it comes to the 135mm focal length where camera shake is especially prevalent, it’s little exaggeration to say that poor light hand-held photography with film is a waste of time. Where the M10 – happily cranks up the ISO to a noise-free 6400, the film-loaded M remains stuck at 100. That’s 6 stops slower. Stated differently, the digital snapper will be using 1/500th at f/4 whereas the proud owner of the M2 or M3 will be using 1/8th at the same aperture. Night and day different. Still, the film guy does get to enjoy the sensation of winding on from one blurred frame to the next. Or maybe his deliverable is a postcard-sized print? What a waste of a Leica.

So forget the ‘out resolve’ nonsense, forget film and enjoy these lenses better than they ever were back in the day by using a modern digital sensor and a short shutter speed. The later M10R (40mp) and M11 (60mp) upped the resolution ante and dynamic range, so you can expect even better results with these later digital bodies.

Drawbacks?

Sure, the ancient single coating on older lenses is far less flare resistant than the multi-coating applied to modern optics. But then again, the film era snapper did not have Lightroom, and a couple of simple tweaks on the sliders, especially the ‘dehaze’ one, and your ancient lens just acquired the equivalent of modern coatings. Takes less time to do than to write.

Age:

With lenses over 50 years old expect to have quite a search for good examples. Lubricants dry out, multiple owners suggest a possibly troubled history, poor storage leads to rust or oil on the diaphragm blades with haze, scratches and mould common. So be a skeptical buyer and ask all the right questions to put matters on the record with eBay should the seller lie to you.

Enhancements:

  • The shoulder bag is described here.
  • The 21mm finder is described here
  • Replacement of the ghastly red dot is here.
  • The added silicone dome on the Focus button is here.

Non-Leica glass:

If you think only Leica glass should grace a Leica body cease reading this. Any number of aftermarket makers made and make fine optics for the Leica rangefinder bodies. Get real.

When I acquired my Leica M10 I was certain of one thing. I was not going to buy Leica glass – new or used – at the exorbitant prices demanded. The sole exceptions are the Leitz Canada 90mm Tele-Elmarit, as it is bargain-priced on the used market, and the similarly bargain-priced 135mm Elmar. Some of the great classic Leica Thread Mount (LTM) lenses were made by Canon in the 1960-70 era and these are abundantly available used, albeit largely from Japanese vendors whose prose on eBay is optimistic, to put it mildly. ‘Mint’ in Japanese English pretty much means ‘shot’, as often as not. But that’s nothing some serious due diligence, done before hitting the ‘Buy’ button, would not overcome. Canon made some outstanding lenses in that era.

While there are many new contemporary Chinese lenses to be had at bargain prices, most have very large apertures along with the bulk and weight those bring, not in keeping with the Leica concept of ‘small camera, small lens’. Plus I’m naturally averse to buying products from a nation sworn to destroy us. So those were not candidates.

Outlay:

My total outlay for all five optics was $1,500-$1,600, which is half the amount you can expect to pay for one contemporary used Leica lens. That’s more a comment on Leica’s ridiculous pricing, not on my ability to track down bargains. Here they are with links to my historical notes as well as to resolution tests. You can pretty much correct for most lens faults in Lightroom but you cannot find resolution if it’s missing. In summary, these old lenses have never been better.

The cost shown below in all cases includes a protective UV filter (do not waste money on Leica branded filters which cost ten times what regular ones sell for) and an LTM-to-M bayonet adapter for the three LTM lenses. Again, avoid the Leica branded adapters ($$$). I do not use lens hoods, finding them to largely be a waste of time, with bulk added. If you get flare the ‘Dehaze’ slider in LRc is your friend.

Finish quality:

Engraving quality on the three Canon lenses is as good as it gets, meaning Leica quality, and the paint filling shows no sign of fading or discoloration. Black anodizing and satin chrome and equally high quality. Those on the Voigtländer are a step down and quite why they cannot provide proper indexes for mounting and for the aperture ring is a mystery. The paint fillings on the aperture ring of the Leitz 90mm lens were badly faded and had to be refreshed. Easy fix.

6-bit coding:

6-bit coding is the bees’ knees, enhancing already fine performance with digital sensors. It’s also very easy to add. I use the cheap Fotodiox LTM-to-M bayonet adapters which come in plain and 6-bit coded versions for very little. All five are 6-bit coded to ensure correct EXIF lens data. The Tele-Elmarit came with a 6-bit flange but I had to add codes to the other four lenses.

Optical quality and weight:

All five are optically and mechanically outstanding with most peaking a stop or two down from fully open. The exception is the 135mm Elmar which is pretty much perfect at full aperture. Weights below are with a UV filter in all cases and LTM-to-M bayonet adapters for the three Canons. The weight of all five optics combined is just 2 lbs. 12 ozs. with only the 135mm not really being pocketable.

Very wide – 21mm f/3.5 Voigtländer Color-Skopar VM Aspherical:

Background: Here
Resolution tests: Here
Cost: $350 used – like new
Crappy 21mm finder: Here.
Filter size: 39mm
Minimum focus distance: 0.5 meters, couples down to 0.6 meters
Weight: 185 grams/6.5 ozs. The finder adds 0.2 ozs.
6-bit code: ‘000001’ (Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8)
Modifications: Red dome mounting index added. Aperture index added on UV filter.
Leica equivalent: 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar-M ASPH – $3,600
Notes: The Color-Skopar is available new for $650. The stock mounting and aperture indexes are shockingly poor. The lens is optically outstanding but flare resistance is no better than with the older lenses. US seller.

Wide – 35mm f/2 Canon LTM:

Background: Here
Resolution tests: Here
Cost: $400 used – like new
Filter size: 40mm
Minimum focus distance: 1 meter
Weight: 139 grams/4.9 ozs.
6-bit code: ‘000110’ (Summicron-M 35mm f/2 (IV))
Modifications: Red dome mounting index added.
Leica equivalent: 35mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH – $4,200
Notes: An absolute gem, if you can find a clean one. Japanese seller.

Standard – 50mm f/1.4 Canon LTM:

Background: Here
Resolution tests: Here
Cost: $300 used – like new
Filter size: 48mm
Minimum focus distance: 1 meter
Weight: 269 grams/9.5 ozs.
6-bit code: ‘000101’ (Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 (II))
Modifications: Red dome mounting index added.
Leica equivalent: 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M – $4,800
Notes: The lens locking button fell off and I had to procure an aftermarket spring to get things back together properly. That and a drop of Loctite 242 to keep the assembly bolted together. A fine lens if you can find a clean one. Japanese seller.

Portrait – 90mm f/2.8 ‘thin’ Tele-Elmarit:

Background: Here
Resolution tests: Here
Cost: $460 used – good user, some dust inside, otherwise clean glass
Click stops: Irritating half stop clicks
Filter size: 39mm
Minimum focus distance: 1 meter
Weight: 217 grams/7.7 ozs.
6-bit code: ‘000100’ (Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 (II))
Modifications: None
Modern Leica equivalent: 90mm f/4 Macro-Elmar-M – $4,200
Notes: It’s tiny, and bargain-priced as these things go. Stop it down to f/4 or smaller and it’s excellent at all apertures thereafter. I had to refill the paint fillings for the faded aperture markings. US seller.

Telephoto – 135mm f/3.5 Canon LTM or 135mm f/4 Leitz Elmar:


Background: Here
Canon resolution tests: Here
Canon modifications: Red dome mounting index added. Focus cam extended and modified with epoxy for accurate focusing. The stock positioning of the cam prevents the rangefinder in any Leica M from working properly.
Cost: Canon – $148 used – mint, close to new. Leitz – $262 – used, mint
Click stops; Full stops on the Canon, frustrating half stops on the Leitz
Filter size: 48mm/39mm
Minimum focus distance: 1.5 meters
Weight: Both – 446 grams/15.8 ozs.
6-bit code: Canon – ‘001001’ (Elmarit-M f/2.8); Leitz – M10 set to 135mm f/2.8 uncoded lens
Modern Leica equivalent: 135mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-M – $3,400
Notes: Both are as good as it gets for very little money. The Canon is the 8th and last version made, 1971. Japanese seller. The Leitz was made in 1960. US seller. While the Canon needs cam modification, the Leitz lens works straight out of the box. In either case correct rangefinder alignment is critical for accurate focus and even then accurate focus remains a challenge at larger apertures and/or closer focus distances. I recommend focus bracketing. The Elmar is meaningfully better than the Canon as regards both resolution of fine detail as well as absence of flare at all apertures. Make Really Large Prints and you will see the difference. But it also costs a little more. The Leitz lens cannot be 6-bit coded but by leaving the camera manual lens setting at ‘135mm f/2.8 Elmarit’ that profile is automatically invoked when this sole uncoded lens is mounted. All the other lenses are 6-bit coded and will invoke the correct profile for each, overriding this manual setting.