Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nigel 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 Nigel, I don't think it is valid to infer from the statement "the 135/3.4 APO improves on stopping down in close range" that it is inferior to the 135/4 tele-elmar, as you imply. My amateurish tests on my late type 135/4 certainly confirm that it doesn't improve with stopping down. I do not have a 135/3.4 but my tests also show that at close range my 135/4 is inferior to my 90 Elmarit-M, by some margin. I can easily believe Erwins findings and the LF comment that there is a similar margin between the 135/3.4 and 135/4, such that it can be true, both that the new lens is better than the earlier one, and that it improves on stopping down. Mike Boreham