Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 135, f 2.8
From: "Art Searle" <w2nra@erols.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:23:41 -0400

>Art Searle wrote:
>> I believe that the 135
>>Elmarit-M just magnifies the camera's viewfinder 1.5 X.  It brings up the
>>135 bright-line frame but magnifies it also 1.5.

Nick Hunter wrote:
>Art-can't be. The magnifier goes in front of the finder, so it can't
>magnify the framelines, only the image.


Kip Babington
>The eyes
>do all their work before any light hits the viewfinder/frameline system,
>so I don't think they could magnify or otherwise affect the framelines
>themselves.

Of course you are both right.  My original thoughts on how the goggles work
was completely wrong.  However the fact that the 135 f/2.8 brings up the
90mm frame lines and magnifies by a factor of 1.5 X brings up a problem
IMO.  The difference between the 90 & 135 is 2.25X not 1.5 X.  I calculate
that if the 135 were focused at 15 feet, the horizontal coverage would be 4
feet.  (as a mechanical test my M6 135 frame lines measure 3.7 feet at 15
feet.)   The 90 frame lines measure at 1.5 magnification equal 4.9 feet.
In this example this lens frame lines would be off and register almost a
foot more coverage that actual.  Can anyone who uses this lens verify that
from experience?  And if this is true it would seem to me, for more
accurate framing, it would be better to use the 135 f/4 with the M6HM than
the 135 f/2.8 with the standard M6.

Art

Art Searle, W2NRA, w2nra@erols.com, Lake Grove, Long Island, NY, USA
20 miles east of Nikon USA, 70 miles east of Leica USA