Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:22 AM 7/12/03 -0400, Seth Rosner wrote: > >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. Seth and Henning I recommend on both points that you review your copies of Puts'LEICA LENS COMPENDIUM, page 183. Marc's claim might be subject to challenge, but it is hardly "rubbish". I believe that Rogliatti comments in accordance with Erwin, but my copy is not readily at hand. Yes, the contrast on the Tele-Elmar is better, but it is less satisfactory on other optical factors. And, Seth, you clearly have never shot with a 4/13.5cm CZJ Sonnar T or a good Jupiter-11; I cheerfully grant you the problems inherent in SPS quality control. Finally, I have owned multiple copies of all of these lenses and have used them extensively, as the 135 focal length is a favorite of mine. The 3.4/135 APO-Telyt is the finest of the lot, but neither the 4/135 Elmar nor the Tele-Elmar are slouches. Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html