Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>How come nobody writes about the 135 lens? Is is worth considering? Mr or Ms Fstop008 (!), The 135s are good lenses, just not very practical with a rangefinder. You can get some idea of this befoe you get a 135: just try shooting (without film in the camera) with the 135 frame in your finder (it comes up with the 35mm lens frame on most Ms) - focusing and framing are much trickier. You may also find that even a tiny error in calibration of camera, lens or yr particular combination results in large focus errors on film: I have six Ms and they do not all focus consistently with my 135 Tele-Elmar, 50/1.4 and 75/1.4. Some work well with all lenses, some only with some. Now I am super critical and talking about the most demanding situations such as close range and wide apertures so don't panic: general usage is okay with most combos. The 135/4 is however the lens most prone to problems. They all work fine with my 90/2.8 though. They have all been checked and calibrated to 'factory standards' but still in practice I am not confident using the 135 with some of my Ms : I suspect this is the reason they are cheap on the s/h market. However if you find a reliable combo go ahead and enjoy it! FWIW the M3s and M4s are better than the M6s IME. Both my M6s have been recollimated. In conclusion I would recommend an SLR for longer focal lengths but if you want an all M outfit the 135 CAN be useful. If you are buying new it would IMHO be preferable to get an 80-200 or even the 135/2.8 for R at the same sort of price level and image quality but with more versatility and practicality. Just my opinion! Rgds Adrian Bradshaw Photojournalist Shanghai, China