[Leica] Vedr: Leica Elmarit 135 mm, f/2.8

[jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier)]

Brittle was not meant to be offensive, thug I can see how it could be taken 
that way, my bad. Would you have been happy with the word "razor"?

I have multiple 135 lenses: Elmarit, Elmar and Hektor, and, each shines in 
different applications. I was using the 135/2.8-M wide open just today on 
the M8. Makes for a great, but not "brittle" sharp, 180ish mm. Very useable 
with the goggles though I think I should have used a monopod as I was 
shooting at 1/30 even with the ISO bumped to 2500.

Oh well, my point in the post was that he might be quite happy with a 
1350/2.8 as long as he is not looking for that modern Leica Asph look -- 
which most certainly an Elmarit will not deliver.

I presently have several Asph lenses and have owned a sampling from 21 
thought to 90. I have been simply delighted with them all except the 21 
which was a little too soft in the corners wide open. I traded it on a 24 
and the corners are better and I use my Ted Grant approved sneakers to back 
up a single step to a get what I want.

Cheers,

John

On 2012-01-17, at 10:21 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> 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.