Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc wrote, about 135 mm. lenses: >>This IS now an unhappy focal length, as so >>many folks have been told for so long that it is pushing an RF to use that >>long a lens, that now they believe it. I use the 4/135 Tele-Elmar and >>2.8/135 Elmarit regularly, and find them both delightful lenses in all regards. In the case of 135's for the M's this may be part of it, but my guess is that there are two other factors: The big one is the difficulty of composing in the tiny frame provided (I know; it's not impossible--I do it) for the f4 lens, and the bulk of the alternative 2.8 lens with "eyes," a size which seems to go against the idea of the tiny M system. Anyway, whatever the reason, I understand that, to put it charitably, sales for the redesigned tele-Elmar are slow. Actually, as you suggest, the "pushing the RF" theory isn't true. I took a course at the Leica School years ago, and they said there that 135 was the focal length where SLR's surpassed Leica rangefinders in focusing accuracy (the RF's being better at all wider focal lengths). But they also said that 135's are perfectly usable on rangefinders, which squares with my experience, especially the f4, which has sufficient DOF wide open to cover any focusing errors. As far as other 135's go, they are practically obsolete on SLR's because, I think, of the rise a number of years ago of the portable f4 75-200 zooms, which are not, these days, too much bigger than the Leica R 135 and lose only 1 stop. Nevertheless, I like the extra stop, and find 135 a useful length. Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU