Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Like all things Leica, the newest is the best and most expensive. From the banter money is an issue. So, if you can see feel and touch the merchandise, the cheapest really good lens would be a late model Russian Zeiss clone. As the construction quality is so variable you probably should lay hands on one. Well, you are determined to buy online. The next best for the least would be either of the Nikon or Canon 135 3.5. Since both of these are Zeiss inspired designs you are looking at a very similar image quality. As screw mounts both will set the infinity line somewhere off center to the left as you are holding the camera. I currently have the Nikon and it is indeed a very nice lens. I have many Canon's and they also perform very well so I think whichever you find at the best price. In the US these have been a drug on the market so negotiate way down. Whatever the asking price talk it down, there are always more in the wings. Only the very early Canon lenses had any problems mounting on a LTM. Next up comes the Leica glass. The Hektor is often available cheap but usually is in dire need of cleaning which negates its price. Erwin states that the 60's Tele-Elmar in some but not all ways exceeds the Zeiss design from the 30's so now you know why I put the Zeiss designs at the top. So, if you stumble upon a 135 Tele-Elmar at your price point that would be a good choice. The last 135 F2.8 is frequently unloved so it is also sometimes findable really cheap. You would have to determine if the goggles work for you. My last choice would be the Culminars which deliver a good picture quality especially if you shoot at 5.6 or smaller. In all cases you will be happier with a 135 if you use an M3, a 0.85 finder, or the 1.25X magnifier. Don dorysrus@mindspring.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html