Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello, Please do not forget about the black version of this lens which in my book is not heavy at all. I have never used the chrome version but the black version is every inch as good as the Leica 135/4 Elmar (or 135/4.5 Hektor) and the Nikon 135/3.5 probably at a tad bit cheaper price. The black version is pretty compact and excellent performer in every respect at a bargain. I presume that the black version has better coatings too. I did know that the Nikon 135/3.5 was a carbon copy of the Zeiss lens but did not know that the Canon 135/3.5 was basically the same as the Zeiss Sonnar too. Then there is no doubt that either the Canon or the Nikon would perform just about the same in optical performance. I have heard that most of the Nikon and the Canon lenses made in that era were better performer than the comparable Leica lenses. One good example is the Canon 100/2 which has been considered better performer than the 90/2 Summicron. In a nutshell, these Canon and Nikon rangefinder lenses are excellent in performance at much small numbers. This info is what I have gathered from various users and collectors including my experience. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:50 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens > Ken, > This is basically a Zeiss Sonnar 135 so most of the comments from that > lens apply as well. Like most 30's designs wide open performance is a > little soft but by 5.6 you are getting fine detail in most of your > image. As well with most thirties designs, flare can be an issue when > shooting into the light. The lens is indeed made of heavy chrome plate > on solid brass so weight is a factor to consider. > > Using it on a IIIf there is no problem with obstruction of the > viewfinder although focusing for a wide open shot is somewhat > challenging. > > Considering price, there is probably no better 135mm lens for a LTM > camera other than perhaps the 135 Nikkor which offers similar > performance and weight unless you find a late black version that has an > aluminum barrel. > > If there is someone who sell the Russian Zeiss design 135's so returns > are easy this lens is much lighter, offers perhaps better performance as > the F4 design has not been stretched, and the coatings will be much > better than the Leitz designs for LTM. > > If you can the Canon lens for the $100 range, why not just get one? > Even if you use it only once a year and then decide that longer focal > lengths are not your cup, you can sell the puppy for what you paid for > it. These things are just about fully depreciated. > > Don > dorysrus@mindspring.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf > Of Kenneth Frazier > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:55 AM > To: Leica Group > Subject: [Leica] Canon 135/3.5 lens > > Listers: > > Anybody had any experience with the Canon 135/3.5 LTM lens on a IIIf? > > TIA > > Ken Frazier > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >