Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Aha....you bring up another point. The 135mm focal length is a seldom used one for me; I bought the 135/4 almost as an impulse. My local dealer had two that were returned by customers who wanted to trade up to the 135/3.4. They were virtually new. I've used it a few times, and have been very pleased with the quality of the lens, but it is not 'natural' for me. So even if the newer lens turns out to be a killer in comparison, it would still not really make sence for me to have it. But, and this is strictly my opinion, I really don't believe that the new lens can be that much better, in side by side print comparisons. For what it is worth, in all my years of photography, I have never seen an optical equivalent of an audio store's A/B test, where one lens outshone another. I've noticed subtle differences, yes, but none that would scream out, "This is better than the other". Dan C. At 11:05 AM 10-05-99 -0700, you wrote: >The only way to know for sure would be to shoot a roll with each lens >and if the 3.4 clearly shines in your style work over the 4 than maybe >it's worth saving up for. >Another aspect of the argument is as the 135 focal length has not >related to my work too much these kinds of dollars could never make >sense. But the results of such a test could make you realize the >potential for what this focal length could do for you. It could amaze >you into absorbing into your shooting style. I think it easily could. >When I figure out this web site thing I will post some of my results. >Mark Rabiner > >