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 10:33 PM -0400 7/10/03, Marc James Small wrote:
>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!
I haven't yet met a 135 Elmar that was better than a Tele-Elmar.
Going to a telephoto design doesn't necessarily mean lowering the
optical quality.
Keeping to a classical design means that it's easier to design with
log tables. We don't require that any more, so many telephoto designs
are as good or better than standard designs. All the best modern long
lenses, such as the 180 Summicron, 200/1.8 Canon and such are
telephoto designs. Nothing wrong with them; they are the class of the
field.
The one area that telephotos have more problems than standard designs
is with distortion, but in telephotos even that has been handled
sufficiently for almost all purposes, as the narrow field of view
makes that easier.
As far as 135's are concerned, note that the APO 135/3.4 is a telephoto design.
As far as the 135/2.8 is concerned, its only claim to fame are the
goggles, whcih, if adjusted correctly, help with focussing.
Optically, it falls far behind the Tele-Elmar 135/4 at all apertures
except f/2.8.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html