Re: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M

[Seth Rosner <sethrosner@direcway.com>]

Here we go again, folks.

Henning has it exactly right. Marc has it exactly wrong. I challenge Marc to
cite two - not many, just two - "users and analysts" whose experience, like
his, is that the 135/4 Elmar is "optically superior to the compressed teles"
(Henning has noted correctly that the new Leica 135/3.4 APO-Telyt is a
telephoto design). Marc's claim is utter rubbish.

And to claim that the Soviet and post-Soviet 135 Jupiter is in this class of
lenses is, well, even rubbisher. Only a zeissaholic would go there.

I have owned and used all three Leitz 135mm M-lenses (but not the current
APO-Telyt). The 135/4 Elmar was and still is an excellent image producer.
Introduced in 1960, Leitz' own brochure described  it as "one of the
sharpest lenses ever created" and at the time it was. The 135/4 Tele-Elmar
was introduced only five years later. While its mount changed twice, such
was the optical performance of this lens that the same optical formula
remained in production for over 30 years, until the introduction of the 135
APO-Telyt.

The 135/2,8, like the Tele-Elmar a true telephoto design, likewise produced
and produces excellent images; just that neither its nor the Elmar's images
are as excellent as those of the 135/4 Tele-Elmar. There has been occasional
criticism of the optical quality of the 135/2,8. Many are unaware that the
optical formula of this lens was improved in 1975 (it produced the optical
formula of the 135/2,8 Elmarit-R in an M-mount with goggles). Visually they
can be distinguished by the fact that the rear element of the first version
is concave while that of the second version is convex.

Note too that the redoubtable Mr. Puts holds the almost 40-year-old 135/4
Tele-Elmar very close in optical excellence to the world-standard APO-Telyt.

Please, Marc.


At 10:33 PM -0400 7/10/03, Marc James Small wrote:
>At 09:00 PM 7/9/03 -0700, SML wrote:
>>Hello Marc,
>>
>>   Are you sure of what you were saying about the 135/4 Elmar being
superior
>>to the 135/4 Tele-Elmar?  I do not remember any single one user comments
>>about the Elmar being superior to the Tele-Elmar.  I am wondering if you
>>meant the other way around.
>
>
>I really hate to toss the word "superior" around without a referent.
>
>It has been my experience, and that of many other users and analysts, that
>the 4/135 Elmar is optically superior to the compressed Tele's which
>followed it in production.  Any time you compromise an optical axis, there
>are compromises to make, and the Tele-Elmar designs are not as satisfactory
>on all points as is the Elmar.  Leitz seems to have been quite affronted by
>Bertele's 4/13.5cm Sonnar, which was a true telephoto and which blew the
>Hektor into the weeds.
>
>To make this clearer, remember that the Hektor and Elmar were not
>telephotos:  that is, they were exactly 13.5cm long.  When Leitz decided on
>the Tele-Elmar, they condensed the length, and thus compromised quality.
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@infionline.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!

I haven't yet met a 135 Elmar that was better than a Tele-Elmar.
Going to a telephoto design doesn't necessarily mean lowering the
optical quality.

Keeping to a classical design means that it's easier to design with
log tables. We don't require that any more, so many telephoto designs
are as good or better than standard designs. All the best modern long
lenses, such as the 180 Summicron, 200/1.8 Canon and such are
telephoto designs. Nothing wrong with them; they are the class of the
field.

The one area that telephotos have more problems than standard designs
is with distortion, but in telephotos even that has been handled
sufficiently for almost all purposes, as the narrow field of view
makes that easier.

As far as 135's are concerned, note that the APO 135/3.4 is a telephoto
design.

As far as the 135/2.8 is concerned, its only claim to fame are the
goggles, whcih, if adjusted correctly, help with focussing.
Optically, it falls far behind the Tele-Elmar 135/4 at all apertures
except f/2.8.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
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