Re: [Leica] 135mm 2.8 question

[Kip Babington <cbabing3@swbell.net>]

I got the 135/2.8 precisely for stage photography, where the extra stop can
make a real difference.  It is indeed heavy, and the goggles limit the field
of view to not much beyond the frame lines.  I usually use a monopod when the
light gets dim, but this lens is too heavy to let you use the camera's tripod
mount (too much torque on the baseplate) so you have to use the tripod mount
on the lens, which in turn may mean that you have to take the whole rig off
to change film if your tripod's mounting surface is too big to allow the
camera body to be rotated off by itself.  (I address this by using the Arca
QR clamp on the monopod and put a plate on the bottom of the lens, which
works fine on the monopod but then makes it rather uncomfortable to hand
hold.  Ah well, . . .)

All that said, I find the lens pretty easy to hand hold in daylight (and
comfortable if I remove the QR plate,) and appreciate the magnified image and
more precise focusing that the goggles give.  Like the 135/4 the head is
removable, for when you pull out the Visoflex.  It is a fairly slow focuser
(a bit under 270 degrees rotation from infinity to about 1.5 meters,) but
I've managed to learn how to capture my daughter jumping a horse over a
fence, so it can't be all that bad.  I don't have the 135/4 to compare image
quality to, but I will say that I don't see any difference in print quality
between shots made with this lens and my 90/2 (old style,) if that tells you
anything.

After I get some spare change and a Noctilux I'll probably pick up the 135/4
just to have a more compact and lighter lens of that length to use in bright
light, but until then I'm pretty satisfied with the 2.8.

Cheers,
Kip Babington

Alex Brattell wrote:

> There's never any mention of the 135mm 2.8 goggled lens for the M.
> <snip>