Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<<In a message dated 03/29/2004 3:45:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, gcr910@msn.com writes: Group: Will soon buy an M 135 mm and would like users' opinions/comments/anecdotes/cautions about the 3.4 APO and old glass (such as the 2.8). Have read Erwin Puts material, but would like some hands-on input closer to the photo world I inhabit. Lean toward a new 3.4 simply 'cuz I've had wretched luck over the years with anything used; must admit, however, that I am tempted by the extra stop and significant price differential of the old glass.>> Greg (and apologies to those who've read my treatise on this subject an nauseam on photo.net), I own the 135/3.4 APO-Telyt . At one time I was the owner of an early-70's sample of the Tele-Elmar, and was an internet virgin and happened upon Erwin's write-up of the just-released APO. Not yet recognizing what Erwin is all about, I bought the lens untried and untested based on his pseudo-scholarly appraisal. And I tested them exhaustively, with Velvia, on a tripod, at all apertures and short, medium and long distances. They are two exceptionally good lenses, so close in performance that to this day I kick myself for being such a gullible fool and paying all that much more money for the APO...whose lens head, unlike the T-E, I can't mount on my Visoflex. The APO is a magnificent optic. So is the T-E and it's about 1/3 the price. Sometimes I really wish I was the type, like so many Leica users, who could see whatever he wanted to see in comparison photos...if I were, I'd be a lot happier I spent the extra money. Jay