Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dominique PELLISSIER <pelliss@droit-eco.u-nancy.fr> wrote: > In the Leica M compendium, Eastland wrote (p.62) : > "The lens (tele-elmar 135)is unsurpassed in its class for optical > performance and at full aperture it is still one of the best lenses in > the entire leica system". > The same judgment appears in Laney (Leica lens practice, p.188) and, of > course, in the official leica literature. > Now the french photographic review "Chasseur d'images" has recently > tested the lens and concluded that the old optical formula gives only > "good results" (in terms of MTF measure)far away the standard of quality > of Leica. > Where is the truth ? Ok, now that we've heard all about the politics of magazine publishing can we get back to the original question? I too am interested in buying this lens and have resisted because the published reviews seemed so bad. I bought the 90 first because of that. What is the scoop on the Tele-Elmar-M f/4 135mm lens? Art P.S. I will be on vacation until March 23rd, so I won't be able to address any responses 'til then. Art Searle, W2NRA, w2nra@erols.com, Lake Grove, Long Island, NY, USA 20 miles east of Nikon USA, 70 miles east of Leica USA