Re: [Leica] Re: Help evaluating a 135/2.8

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Perhaps we should give the world of fast Teles to the Slr people. I
think of the 75 as a fast very short tele. The 135 focal length is a
definite tele lens if you're me.
I walked around with a 135/2.8 on my camera for an hour or two last
sunny Sunday. I felt that the lens transformed by elegant M6 into a
dangerous piece of survailance equipment. Impressively solid and heavy.
It was no longer the camera I had learned to love but impressive none
the less.
I shot some pictures with it and I felt like I couldn't quite get my eye
all the way into the viewfinder. 
When I switched to my new 135/3.4 for the walk home it was a relief for
my eye and my hand and arm. I have no trouble composing in the small
little uncluttered rectangle and when I get a second body the option of
the .85 finder I could pass on. The .72 works fine. If they made a .62 I
would consider it as seeing the 35mm frames with my glasses on would be
nice. But that's a horse of a different color. The bottom line IMO.
Get the 3.4. If speedy teles really are important (try the 3.4 or a
great deal on a 4 first) than get an Slr if you don't already have one.
Presumptuous advice maybe but its all I got. In my memory the worse
thing Erwin ever wrote about a Leica lens was about the results of the
135/2.8. With great restraint of course. When I run my roll of tri x (In
Rodinal 1/50) will I see a huge difference between the walk out with the
2.8 and the walk back with the 3.4? I think I will see a difference and
it will probably be very subjective as the shots were hand held and
lighting varied, but I'll let you know.
Happy small rectangles!
Mark Rabiner