Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I preface this retort by saying to all assembled that poor deluded Buzz is one of my best friends, on list and off-list-face-to-face, as we live within about 15 minutes of each other (and didn't even know of each other's existence prior to meeting on the LUG :-) ) Sorry, Buzz - But...First off, the idea of a 135 on a rangefinder is just plain silly to begin with - and that silliness explains why the Nikon F took off like a shot among photojournalists...and why, if you go back to those 'golden days' and look at photos of photographers, at demos, wars, etc., and you'll often see one to two Leicas or Nikon RFs and two Fs strung over neck and shoulders - often a 21 and 35 or 35 and 50 on the Leicas, and the venerable 105 2.5 and the 200 f4 on the Nikons. Shooting with a naked 135 on an M is just a total pia - using a 90 at any distance is bad enough, but that tiny frame, with tiny little people in it, is silly. It was one thing when there were no good options. But the 135 2.8 provides at least a compromise option. Yes, it's heavy. No, it is not the sharpest piece of glass in the drawer. But it does produce good images, as Sonny's little display atests - and heavy is a relative term. And the goggles at least provide some magnification and sense of what one is really shooting. Can you stick the 135 2.8 in your pocket? Nope. But it's not the woofer you'd make it out to be. :-) B. D. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Buzz Hausner Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions, Go Ask Tootsie and Opus Come on, B.D., haven't Tootsie and Opus taught you to understand the meaning of "bow-wow"? The 135/2.8 is softer than other options, exhibits less contrast than other options, is harder to frame than other options, and is a whole lot bigger and heavier than other options. What's to like other than an extra stop for which one can more easily compensate in film choice or speed. Bow wow. Having spent most of my working life in public service, I can definitely say that the 135/2.8 is certainly not good enough for government work, at least in the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! If money is an object, the late expression 135/4.0's cost about US$100 less than equivalent 2.8's. If money is no object, than the 3.4 is the only way to go for an M mount 135. That said, I must emphasize to anyone who has never used a 135 on an M body that if you practice, practice, practice, you will get to Carnegie Hall at just about the same time you can accurately frame with any 135 and you may still want to consider that R4... Buzz Hausner -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:14 PM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions/Comments/Anecdotes/Cautions Oh blah, blah blah, Buzz -;-) An APO it ain't, but it also ain't no pooch. Heavy, yes, but it makes using a 135 on an M practical with those eyes. And soft? Compared to an APO? Yup. But it's more than good enough for gummint work. In fact, I'd say it's one of the real bargins in Leica lensdom, given that it can be picked up for under $500. B. D. A contrarian to the end. :-) -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Buzz Hausner Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:06 PM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions/Comments/Anecdotes/Cautions The 135mm f/2.8 is the ultimate Leica pooch. Even with the eyes it isn't easy to focus and, when it is in focus, you'll notice the image is a tad soft and lacks good contrast. The best deal in Leica 135's are late production 135 f/4.0's. Exceptionally sharp by anybody's standards, a wee package when compared to the 2.8, and really quite inexpensive by Leica measures. Caveat emptor; framing with any 135 on an M camera is an art which must be learned from experience. Buzz Hausner -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Rubenstein Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:45 PM To: lug@leica-users.org Subject: [Leica] M 135 Opinions/Comments/Anecdotes/Cautions 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. On- and off-list user replies welcome. Thanks. Greg Rubenstein gcr910@msn.com _________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar - FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information