Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Simon Lamb wrote: > > Mark > > OK, I read it and now I want one. So what do I tell my wife now?! First > the M6 and 50mm f/2. Then an excuse to get the 35mm f/2 Asph. Then a > really good reason for needing the 90mm f/2 AA. What possible excuse could > I have for getting the 135mm f/3.4, other than I will be even further away > from my photographic subjects? > > Any reasonable suggestions for excuses to my wife (likely to work, or proven > in the field) will be gratefully received. > > Simon > 135mm is such a useful focal length. And certainly a different focal length than 90 entirely. If you had Nikons or Canons and you were not into Zooms as I am you would give it much less thought as it would take much less capital outlay (money). From my 20 years Experience with Nikon SLR's I already knew that the 135 was a head shot lens and the 90 or 85 in that case was a full length or almost full length body shot lens. (I did find that an 85 would shorten people and that I was better off using a 105.) But in the Leica M the 90 does not shorten people I can use it for full length shots with dispatch. And not bad for head shots but a 135 gives that look that you really like to see. And traveling cross country doing many "way out there shots with lots of sky and horizon and earth even sunrises or sets I would be switching as I've said between the 90 and 135 back and forth. It had to be one or the other. Mark Rabiner Telephoto lenes are harder to make. The tend to have less contrast and resolution than lenes of a close to normal focal length (50). you can see this on a contact sheet with most systems. The fifties have more punch you can see when you swith to a wide or long tele because you loose your black and things start to wash out. Not so with the Leica M system and now not with the new 135 from what I can tell!!!