Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Eric, My issues with the 135mm used to be twofold. Firstly, it struck me as a focal length that was too long to be a comfortable portrait lens and too short to be a real tele. Therefore, on my Nikons I found myself working with the 105mm and 180mm, and ignored 135. On the Leica, I was mainly focused (pardon the pun) on medium and wide focal lengths (since this is where I felt Leica's strength lay), and ignored 135, even though I had one in my kit. I'm not sure if my "vision" is maturing or not. If anything, because I no longer really care what others think of my work, (I don't seek exhibitions or publication any more), and since I'm doing it just for my own creative gratification, I tend to be very narrow in my appreciation of my own work. Others who see my prints are much more appreciative of them than I am. Very little satisfies me -- which leads me to work that much harder, so I suppose it's not altogether a bad thing. <g> Cheers, Michael At 07:18 AM 26/03/96 -0800, you wrote: >Michael Reichmann wrote: > >>I havn't had a 135 in my Leica M set because back in the late 60's when >>I used Leicas to make a living I found this focal length to the the >>least useful. For some reason, I now find that I don't perceive the >>same limitations. > >It means you have become a better photographer, and can find value with >less change in focal length than before. Your appreciation for >subtlety in composition is maturing. > >It's like 50mm lenses. When someone says it's a boring focal length, I >tend to believe it means more that they're a boring photographer. I'm >not aiming that comment at anyone here or elsewhere, btw. > >-- >Eric Welch >Grants Pass, OR > > >