[Leica] Leica 135mm Apo Telyt M

Paul Roark roark.paul at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 20:31:30 PDT 2021 

I am also a hiker.  So I consider size and weight.  The Leica 135 at 4 1/4
inches and 478 grams is much nicer to carry than the Canon zoom at 6 1/2
inches and 787 grams.  So, if I can capture more information with less size
and weight, that counts, big time.

As to the importance of sharpness, my first one person show (in about 1981)
was, in effect, a market test.  While the people loved the color I was
doing, I regularly saw people walking up close to the prints and then
backing off.  The sharpness of those (original 35mm slides) was not, in my
view, good enough for gallery display.  (Though I was proud to sell one to
Elizabeth Taylor's mother, and the entire show ultimately sold for
corporate decor -- which was not really my target.)  For large, wall
display prints, 35mm film was simply not going to do the job.  Hasselblads
ruled that segment for a reason, and as a result of this original show and
the feedback I received, I bought a Rollei SL66, which was up to the
standards that were expected.  After the show in Palm Springs, it turned
into a traveling show through the greater Los Angeles area.  By that time I
had just a few black and white prints that were taken with the SL66.  I
grew up with a darkroom (my Dad's buddy was Todd Walker), so doing B&W was
easy for me.  In the L.A. show, which was in the lobby of, I believe, what
was then called the Bonaventure, the new medium format B&W prints were all
stolen.  None of the color prints were stolen.  That was great feedback.
Sharp B&W became my target/main medium.

Although I started to experiment with digital image capture early in the
transition, the Leica M9 was really the turning point for me.  MF film and
the Rollei SL66 became relics from the past (though the SL66 holds a
special place in my heart and is in a display case in my home now).

I "sat" at Gallery Los Olivos today.  One of the prints on display was my
"Pompeii Basilica to Mt. Vesuvius."  (See
https://www.paulroark.com/Italy.html and scroll down.)  Even though the
print is very large, people still walk up to it and check out the details.
So do I.

So, while it's probably not true for all people and styles, for what I do,
sharpness matters -- but so does ability to comfortably carry the
equipment.  My simple testing of lenses by shooting the distant top of the
Santa Inez mountains between where I live and Santa Barbara, has been a
significant and easy part of what I do that, I'm convinced, has played a
significant role in my ability to find the equipment and software that
helps me sell my prints and enjoy doing photography.

I might add that we may now be at a transition point in terms of software.
At least for people like me, Topaz's AI Gigapixel is a quantum leap over PS
sharpening.  It's the first example I have any experience with that
suggests "artificial intelligence" may be more than hype and BS.  It's just
another tool, but it's quickly become one I regularly use.  If you like
sharp images, you really ought to check it out.

Cheers,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
..............................................



On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:15 AM Ken Iisaka <ken at iisaka.com> wrote:

> The sad truth is that not all the pixels end up in the final print.
>
> What I've always enjoyed about making large prints in a darkroom is that I
> could make prints which could be enjoyed both up close and from a more
> "normal" viewing distance.
>
> However, I've had several 24x36" (60x90cm) prints made from images captured
> on SL2 and Q2 recently. Invariably, I see that the printing resolution is
> in the order of 100 dpi or even less, that only about 8mp of information
> ends up on the print. When viewed up close, all the details in the original
> image files are lost.
>
> I'd like to know which printers would not downscale the image to an
> artificially low dpi.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Jayanand Govindaraj via LUG <
> lug at leica-users.org> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, image quality matters to the extent it is discernible on a print
> of a
> > size you want to show/exhibit, whatever, at normal viewing distances.
> > Beyond that it means nothing. If you are not exhibiting/selling prints
> of a
> > size equal to a 300% magnification on the monitor, taking normal viewing
> > distances into account, because these are definitely not going to be
> viewed
> > from 12-15 inches away, why bother?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Jayanand
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 7:40 PM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jayanand wrote:
> > >
> > > > How will you ever make out that level of difference in a print of any
> > > size?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Note that the magnifications of the prints are different.
> > >
> > > If image quality doesn't matter, why does Leica exist?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:02 AM Paul Roark via LUG <
> lug at leica-users.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I posted a same-size screen grab of the Leica 135 and Canon 200 at
> > > > >
> https://www.paulroark.com/Leica-apo-135-v-Canon-L-70-200-at-200.JPG
> > .
> > > > >
> > > > > They look very similar, but I think the ridge line of the 135 M
> has a
> > > > > slight advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:59 AM Sonny Carter via LUG <
> > > > lug at leica-users.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > pix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sonny
> > > > > > http://sonc.com <http://sonc.com/look/>
> > > > > > Natchitoches, Louisiana
> > > > > > 1714
> > > > > > Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase
> > > > > >
> > > > > > USA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:57 AM Paul Roark via LUG <
> > > > lug at leica-users.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought this group would appreciate the results of this
> > telephoto
> > > > > > > comparison test.  The question was, between my Canon 70 - 200
> > f/4 L
> > > > > > series
> > > > > > > lens at 200mm and my Leica 135mm, which could actually render
> > > distant
> > > > > > > details the best.  Both were on a Sony a7c.  The Leica 135 won.
> > >  And
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > was at optimum apertures and center.  Off axis and wide open
> the
> > > > > > > differences would be more pronounced.   (The Canon zoom will
> soon
> > > be
> > > > on
> > > > > > > eBay.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Ken Iisaka
> first name at last name dot org or com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

More information about the LUG mailing list