Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John the Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm / f3.4 APO has nothing "brittle" about it. Its just the culmination of excellent second to none Leica lens design in that focal length. There is no downside to more current and better optical design.. That's a LUG myth one of many. And the 3.4 APO wide open shows excellent contrast and sharpness as you'd expect. "Brittle" is the term people give to current Leica glass usually using Aspherics which they don't feel like paying for as they already have the focal lengh in an older version... Having paid big money for it its now no longer the sharpest lens in the catalog. So the scramble for really weak rationalizations that no one should have fallen for. The 2.8 135mm can be defined by how with its built in eyes and large bulk it transforms your M into another beast entirely. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/135mm-f28/D3S_6333-1200.jpg A nice pic of it but not on a body. Its lens design is of a few generations back but I bet it does ok in its results compared to consumer grade optics out now. Stuff which cost a few hundred bucks. The built in eyes do help with the use of the lens getting it in focus. You don't look though the smallest frame but the one made for the 90 so there's that. I shot a roll with one once by the end of the roll I was very used to its good balance on the camera. Not one shot was out of focus. The results seemed at least as good as what I was used to with nikon maybe better but it was not of the same subject in a direct comparison. But its a bit of a monster. If it was cheap enough it might be a deal. And the 3.4 is compact and lightweight in comparison and makes 135mm focal lengh results something else entirely. I have a lot of glass in that range and this outclasses them by far. It certainly makes results from a 3.5 or 2.8 135 Nikkor look dim and I have them both. The 135 focal lengh is very viable for the M system. Some think its not seemly. I've used mine extensively. It was the third lens I owned. I got it before I got a 35mm lens. - old Leitz glass is admired for its supposed silky smoothness and wonderful bokeh... all that is total garbage. The only upside to old glass is it cost less. And you may already have it. And if you already have it you should use it if you're doing ok with it. Putting old glass on a pedestal is one thing I'm not fond of but the tearing down of the latest out from Leica and other companies as if their is some down side to the highest resolution and contrast you can get is dim thinking or wishing. My advice is get the best lens you can't afford. Its all about glass. The camera just keeps the film dark Someone said that on the lug awhile back. -- Mark R. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/winterdays/ > From: John Collier <jbcollier at shaw.ca> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:20:43 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Vedr: Leica Elmarit 135 mm, f/2.8 > > It's a traditional portrait lens along the lines of the Nikkor 105/2.5 -- > does > Nikon still have it in their catalog? A little soft wide-open, sharpening > as > you stop down but never getting razor sharp. An excellent choice for people > shots where you want to maintain a good relationship with the subject. If > you > don't need the 2.8, then the Tele-Elmar is wonderful lens: sharp at all > apertures with even performance across the field though not as kind to us > Shar > Pei like older folk. > > I have never tried the 3.4 but I assume it's like the Tele-Elmar only > brittle-edged sharp, even wide-open. > > John > > On 2012-01-17, at 9:33 AM, Geir wrote: > >> Thanks for the info. Next question how do it preform? > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information