[Leica] Leica 135mm Apo Telyt M

Jayanand Govindaraj jayanand at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 21:16:06 PDT 2021 

Weight is a different factor altogether. All my Nikon telephotos up to
500mm are those I can hand hold, because I miss fewer shots that way. To me
a lens which is a stop slower is an acceptable compromise to getting more
keepers, but as ever, YMMV!

The new "Enhance" function in PS and Lightroom is almost as good as Topaz
Gigapixel. I bought Gigapixel some time ago, but I would not buy it today,
for the same reason as choosing lenses - though Gigapixel is undoubtedly a
tad superior when I am pixel peeping, there is no discernible difference on
a print, more so at normal viewing distances. I agree 100% with you,
though, that modern software negates a lot of the preconceptions that we
have been carrying around, and that giving many of these a trial run is a
worthwhile activity.

Cheers
Jayanand



On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:01 AM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org>
wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

More information about the LUG mailing list