Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rather than tell my wife I will give her a printed copy of your reply to read. If she has any questions I presume I can point her in your direction ;-) Simon Amateur efforts at http://www.phoenixdb.co.uk/leica Mark Rabiner wrote: > 135mm is such a useful focal length. And certainly a different focal length than > 90 entirely. > If you had Nikons or Canons and you were not into Zooms as I am you would give > it much less thought as it would take much less capital outlay (money). > From my 20 years Experience with Nikon SLR's I already knew that the 135 was a > head shot lens and the 90 or 85 in that case was a full length or almost full > length body shot lens. (I did find that an 85 would shorten people and that I > was better off using a 105.) > But in the Leica M the 90 does not shorten people I can use it for full length > shots with dispatch. And not bad for head shots but a 135 gives that look that > you really like to see. > And traveling cross country doing many "way out there shots with lots of sky and > horizon and earth even sunrises or sets I would be switching as I've said > between the 90 and 135 back and forth. It had to be one or the other. > Mark Rabiner > Telephoto lenes are harder to make. The tend to have less contrast and > resolution than lenes of a close to normal focal length (50). you can see this > on a contact sheet with most systems. The fifties have more punch you can see > when you swith to a wide or long tele because you loose your black and things > start to wash out. > Not so with the Leica M system and now not with the new 135 from what I can tell!!!> 135mm is such a useful focal length. And certainly a different focal length than > 90 entirely. > If you had Nikons or Canons and you were not into Zooms as I am you would give > it much less thought as it would take much less capital outlay (money). > From my 20 years Experience with Nikon SLR's I already knew that the 135 was a > head shot lens and the 90 or 85 in that case was a full length or almost full > length body shot lens. (I did find that an 85 would shorten people and that I > was better off using a 105.) > But in the Leica M the 90 does not shorten people I can use it for full length > shots with dispatch. And not bad for head shots but a 135 gives that look that > you really like to see. > And traveling cross country doing many "way out there shots with lots of sky and > horizon and earth even sunrises or sets I would be switching as I've said > between the 90 and 135 back and forth. It had to be one or the other. > Mark Rabiner > Telephoto lenes are harder to make. The tend to have less contrast and > resolution than lenes of a close to normal focal length (50). you can see this > on a contact sheet with most systems. The fifties have more punch you can see > when you swith to a wide or long tele because you loose your black and things > start to wash out. > Not so with the Leica M system and now not with the new 135 from what I can tell!!! > > Simon Lamb wrote: > > > > Mark > > > > OK, I read it and now I want one. So what do I tell my wife now?! First > > the M6 and 50mm f/2. Then an excuse to get the 35mm f/2 Asph. Then a > > really good reason for needing the 90mm f/2 AA. What possible excuse could > > I have for getting the 135mm f/3.4, other than I will be even further away > > from my photographic subjects? > > > > Any reasonable suggestions for excuses to my wife (likely to work, or proven > > in the field) will be gratefully received.