Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]drodgers@nextlink.net wrote: > > 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.snip 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. snip 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 A couple of weeks ago I got the new 135. I had owned the 135 Hector for a year a few years back so I was used to the framelines and I use a 90 Elmarit often. I brought it into the TV room one night. If this sounds funny I was also bringing it into the bathroom with me and was it next to my bed when I slept. I usually get over this with a new lens after a week. So anyway sitting in my TV chair in my TV room I pointed the 135 3.4 at the screen. We have the a big TV 35 inch diagonal screen. I sit nine feet away an average distance it seems to me. The 135 frameline fit the sides of my TV screen. Did I find that a surprise! If you would have asked my I would have guessed somewhere between a 50 and a 75mm frameline would have been it. (If I was not in the room when guessing) This made be think the chunck of reality that I slice out when I click my shutter using the 135 is very ergonomic and therefore useful and appropriate for me or others. Mark Rabiner