[Leica] 135/4 Tele-Elmar M

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

For quite some time I've been curious about the 135 Tele-Elmar. The key question
being, if I had one, would I ever use it?   I don't even like using a 90 on an
M. I thought a 135 would be worse.

On a recent trip to Vancouver Island in Canadian B.C. I had a chance to use a
135/4 TE. I only my M system on that journey. I ended up using the 135/4 TE
quite a bit. The light was such that I used it wide open most of the time. I
came away thinking that this is a very nice lens. I had both an M3 and an M6.
Obviously the M3 viewfinder is better suited to the 135, but I didn't find the
M6 viewfinder all that bad.

It was very different framing and composing an image within a small section of a
much larger visable image. Sort of the antithesis of an SLR. Most of my
photographs on this excursion were typical scenics; photographs of shorelines,
light houses, boats in harbor and underway, etc. (I didn't get many photographs
of the timber industry, which was the main reason for the trip. The weather
wasn't cooperating. This was just a preliminary fact finding trip, anyway.) The
subject matter was static. That's probably why I found the 135 easy to use.  I
gave it quite a workout and, quite frankly, I found it indispensible.

Aside from the fact that it's an excellent lens with great optics, the thing I
liked most about it was the fact that it took 39mm filters, same as my 35 and 50
Summicrons. The thing I disliked most was that I couldn't see in the viewfinder
the compression quality that comes with using longer lenses. That would be more
apparent in the viewfinder of an SLR. Although, in retrospect, I'm not sure
that's too important. I'm not sure if  looking into an SLR or looking through an
M makes any difference in the final result.

Dave