Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:00 PM 7/9/03 -0700, SML wrote: >Hello Marc, > > Are you sure of what you were saying about the 135/4 Elmar being superior >to the 135/4 Tele-Elmar? I do not remember any single one user comments >about the Elmar being superior to the Tele-Elmar. I am wondering if you >meant the other way around. I really hate to toss the word "superior" around without a referent. It has been my experience, and that of many other users and analysts, that the 4/135 Elmar is optically superior to the compressed Tele's which followed it in production. Any time you compromise an optical axis, there are compromises to make, and the Tele-Elmar designs are not as satisfactory on all points as is the Elmar. Leitz seems to have been quite affronted by Bertele's 4/13.5cm Sonnar, which was a true telephoto and which blew the Hektor into the weeds. To make this clearer, remember that the Hektor and Elmar were not telephotos: that is, they were exactly 13.5cm long. When Leitz decided on the Tele-Elmar, they condensed the length, and thus compromised quality. Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html