Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Jerry! I don't know what the "augen" and "brille" are, but it shouldn't matter to me since I parted with my 2.8/135 a number of years ago. I trust that the lens' present owner has seen to their adjustment. You know, I'll be the first to say every lens has its fans...hey, I love my "Skinny" Tele-Elmarit and how many of you can say THAT...but the detractors should also raise their voices in respectful dissent. I hated the 2.8/135; that's just one photographer's opinion, but I don't think I am the only one to hold it. God speed on your recuperation, Jerry! Buzz Hausner - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jerry Lehrer Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 5:04 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] 135 Elmarit and Opera Photography...A Demural Buzzz Well, you are the first person to have a negative view of the 135 f2.8. It balances beautifully for me, as I cradle the lens in my left hand. It is hard to use a Leicavit that way though. The "augen" or "brille" could use adjustment in your case. Jerry Buzz Hausner wrote: > I wish to demur from the many comments lauding the 1:2.8/135mm. > > Let me say at the outset that I find our correspondent's opera > photographs to be quite good, exceptionally good for the genre. > > However, I have found the subject lens troublesome. The unit I owned > and used was heavy and did not balance well on an M6. I for one found > the eyes made focus difficult and that they diminished the brightness > and the sharpness of the finder more than I think acceptable. My > biggest problem with the lens was that it seemed to exhibit low contrast > at all stops and was not nearly as sharp as any of the later versions of > the 135 (for many years I have used and loved a late Wetzlar Tele-Elmar > f4.0 version, SN#3415735). > > The old f2.8 may actually be better for theatrical lighting than general > photography because production lighting and makeup tend to be contrasty. > The 2.8 is indeed a bargain when compared to the present f3.4, but > neither is as good a deal as late model f4.0s which seem to be the > cheapest bayonet lenses on the market. This is especially true if one > is shopping for general photography and not work as specialized as > theatrical photography > > Buzz Hausner > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html