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

[MicroGrid@aol.com]

Simon,
 I think that the 135 2.8 is a sleeper lens, but with the goggles, and the 
70's or earlier design, (I know you're gone Erwin but someone help me here, 
isn't this really an R lens in M clothing?) this lens is big, and heavy. I 
don't have the specs with me here, but just guessing I'd say that the 3.4 is 
maybe 2/3 the size  of the 2.8, or less. Then you have the goggles on top of 
that. 
I look at the goggles two ways;
one, they bring the little tiny 135 frame lines to the full VF size!  :-)
two, they are heavy and awkward.  :-(
I've got an old 135 4.5 Hektor, they are really cheap in Ebay. Tiny light 
135, not a bad lens. But I never take it out. I always take the Elmarit. Even 
with plenty of light.
I just returned from my 5th grade daughter's school play. I took just  2 
lenses by mistake, my 70's 35 'cron, and the 135 2.8, (wanted the 90 'cron 
too). I didn't miss the 90. Given the choice I'd go withthe 35 & 90 every 
time, but it worked this evening.
I guess what I'm saying in a lot of bandwidth is that I don't see the value 
in spending the additional money for  the 3.4, despite the 2.8's age and 
heft. It's not a focal length I use that often.

BTW did you read Kim's post on her sisters baby? Sounds like someone you 
could get some tips from.

Bruce Bowman
Killingworth CT

In a message dated 5/25/00 5:53:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
s_lamb@compuserve.com writes:

<< 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. >>