Re: [Leica] Views on the Leica 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit M

["Simon Lamb" <s_lamb@compuserve.com>]

Bruce

Thanks for that response.  I will certainly give the lens a good check
although the dealer is very good and has had it checked already and rated it
exc+.  How much smaller is the 135 f3.4?  I think perhaps the 90 f/2 AA is
about the right maximum size for the M6 but I would like a longer length
lens.

Simon

Amateur images at http://www.phoenixdb.co.uk/leica


Bruce Bowman wrote:


>
> I like my 135 2.8. I have been using it lately on my M6, taking pictures
of
> my 11 year old daughter's baseball team. I decided to use this lens for
the
> slightly longer focal length than the 90, and because of the goggles. I
like
> them. and can tolerate the bulk. My other choice would be the 'flex with a
> 250, too long and too heavy. I've got an HM M6, and the goggles work fine
> except the vertical alignment is off. I discussed this with SK the other
day,
> and she said it could be a quickie for $ cheap or a little more
complicated
> for ~ $90 US to fix. Sherry says the lens is a keeper, so I guess I will
> despite my ogling at the 135 3.4 for it's size. The lens is performing
very
> well compared to my 90 'cron and TE. Sharp and good contrast on E100 S,
> (although the days have been overcast). I purchased almost all of my Leica
> stuff in the 70's so I shouldn't comment on price. That sounds to be a
pretty
> good price to me. Check out he eyes, Sherry says they are easy to knock
out
> of alignment.
>
>
> Bruce Bowman
> Killingworth CT
>
>
>  In a message dated 5/25/00 1:11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> s_lamb@compuserve.com writes:
>
> << Does anyone have any views on the 135 mm f/2.8 Elmarit M, particularly
in
>  comparison to the Leica 135 mm F 3.4 APO Telyt M.  I can get a exc+
condition
>  used f/2.8 for £499 as opposed to spending £1100 on the f/3.4.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Simon >>