Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 135mm
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:47:21 -0800

Mike Quinn wrote:
> 
> I use a 135 with my M3s regularly. It's a very pleasant focal length, which
> reaches out for birds, seals, marmots and other things that don't appreciate
> my running up to them. (Actually, the marmots don't seem to care how close
> you get, but they can make it kind of hard to get there...).
> 
> The 135 is also very good for head shots and candids.
> 
> Of course the tele view using an SLR is much better (you can see the
> expression on the marmot's face through the SLR before you press the
> shutter). With the rangefinder you wait until the film is developed to see
> whether the shot came out O.K. It usually does. (Marmots and birds have a
> limited set of expressions).
> 
> Try the frame preview to see what I mean. I think it's a sly marketing trick
> by E. Leitz. Once you try it, you realize that you want that extra focal
> length.
> 
> Mike Quinn (who fantasizes about a 400 mm lens, but then probably wouldn't
> carry it around if he had it)
> 
> Doug Cooper wrote:
> 
> > In general, how do people feel about shooting with lenses longer than 90mm
> > with a rangefinder?  I've never done it.

I'm a big advocate of the new 135 and the 90mm focal lengths on the M. With the
new high end optics people should give them a shot and wonder why those focal
lengths have not been viable all along.
All along we hear about how top people consider their 50 to be their long lens
on their M.
But I think things have changed.

Ralph Gibson is big on the 90.

On the 400 why not put a 500 mirror lens on an existing SLR?
Mark Rabiner