Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Buzz Augen=eyes, brille=spectacles. I too used to use a Tele-Elmar f4.0, but when I gave up on M3s in favor of M2s and M4s, I discovered the Tele Elmarit f2.8 which for me, was quite superior. Thanks for the good wishes. Jerry Buzz Hausner wrote: > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html