Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am *implying* nothing. I am *infering* from Leica's own published admission about the 3,4/135 as against nearly every published report I've ever read on the 4/135 which also happens to coincide with my own considerable experience with 2 versions of that lens. I've never even seen a 3,4/135 except in pictures. If and when I get to shoot one, and I hope to do so, I will report what I observe with utmost candor. The same is true with the SA. No implication, only an inference drawn from published evidence. I own both the first (chrome 1963) and final (black 1979) version of the SA, and a 21 ASPH. I've never held a first-version 21 2.8 in my hand, much less shot with one. I remember reading the preponderance of reports comparing that lens un-favourably to the SA in terms of distortion; the general concensus was that its only raison-d'etre was that it permitted metering with the M5/M6. As in the case of the 3,4/135 Leica's motives in creating the 2.8/21 were in fact less than altruistic: an in-house 21 would be more profitable than one contracted from Schneider. Whether due to truth or rumour, dealers were closing out stock of the non-ASPH 21 when it was discontinued with *much* more agression than with the non-ASPH 35 Summicron, and to this day the 3,4 SA sells for more than the 21 2.8. You are of course at liberty to draw your own conclusions from this information. Regards, Nigel On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:43:23 -0800 Francesco <fls@san.rr.com> writes: >So you're implying that the 135/4 is superior at close range to the >135/3.4, >and that the 21/3.4 SA is superior to the first 21/2.8 (as opposed to >the new >21/2.8 ASPH)? > >Francesco > > > >At 08:51 AM 11/14/98 , N. B. Watson wrote: >>Good for you, Dan. Read the commentary in the Nov-Dec issue of >"Leica >>Fotografie" regarding the 3,4 135 APO. Leica *themselves* state that >it >>is necessary to stop down one or two stops to maintain maximum >resolution >>in the near-range. This is definitely *not* the case with the >>Tele-Elmar. We must realise that the 3,4 was not designed to >>specifically to give us the ultimate 135 but rather so that Leica can >>produce only one 135 lens in place of the previous two. In time I >>predict the prices of the Tele-Elmars will ascend in the manner of >the >>3,4 21 S/A after enough *objective* people had a chance to evaluate >the >>first 21 Elmarit-M. >> >>Regards, >>Nigel >> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:03:08 -0500 Dan Cardish ><dcardish@microtec.net> >>writes: >>>Tell me about it. I just took advantage of the new 135/3.4 APO lens >>>offering by buying a near mint Tele-Elmar 135/4 (the current version > >>>with >>>builtin lens hood) from my local dealer for half of it's normal new >>>selling >>>price. Lens looks beautiful, I can't wait to give it a test drive >>>this >>>weekend. >>> >>>Dan C. >>> >>>At 09:23 PM 14-11-98 +0900, you wrote: >>>>Ok, so I was just browsing through a used shop in Tokyo, and found >>>this mint >>>>75mm for less than half of the retail, I couldn not pass it up. >>>> >>>>Even if it were a Noctilux, I may have jumped on it. There >>>definitely seems >>>>to two strains of big M lens virus around here, and I am certainly >>>infected >>>>now. Oh yeah, a new strain is soon to affect many of us soon, >too... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>___________________________________________________________________ >>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >> > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]