Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M 135 Opinions/Comments/Anecdotes/Cautions
From: jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier)
Date: Mon Mar 29 16:41:48 2004
References: <BAY5-F22Vm4vHKi1VnP00022302@hotmail.com>

I have three 135M lenses. I do not use them too often: roughly four or 
five times a year for each lens.

The Hektor is cheap but will probably need a CLA. Stopped down outdoors 
it is a fine lens but wide open is another story. Mounted on a Visoflex 
with bellows it is a stunning macro lens.

The Elmariat is not too expensive, fast and easy to frame and focus 
with its goggles. A little soft wide open but in a pleasing way to my 
eyes. This is one heavy piece of glass to haul about on the off chance 
you might need it.  Older samples may require a CLA.

The Tele-Elmar is stunning all the way from stopped down to wide open 
and from infinity to close. Not as good as the Hektor when stopped down 
on a bellows though. Nice pocketable size and weight and reasonably 
priced. Older samples may require a CLA.

I am keeping all my 135 mm lenses.

John Collier


On Mar 29, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Gregory Rubenstein wrote:

>
> Group:
>
> Will soon buy an M 135 mm and would like users' 
> opinions/comments/anecdotes/cautions about the 3.4 APO and old glass 
> (such as the 2.8). Have read Erwin Puts material, but would like some 
> hands-on input closer to the photo world I inhabit. Lean toward a new 
> 3.4 simply 'cuz I've had wretched luck over the years with anything 
> used; must admit, however, that I am tempted by the extra stop and 
> significant price differential of the old glass.


In reply to: Message from gcr910 at msn.com (Gregory Rubenstein) ([Leica] M 135 Opinions/Comments/Anecdotes/Cautions)