Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ah, kindred spirits, I've been using the 2.8/135 for some years now and the quality is like a kick in the eye. If I didn't already have one I'd be glad to relieve you of yours, if you pay for postage and packing ;-) Wonderful shot the elderly gentleman ! Douglas Mitch Zeissler schrieb: >Yeah, the performance of the goggled 135 is just *awful* isn't it? ;-) I >was focusing on the inside of his left eye and it looks right on the money >to me. I do like the 135 better for portraits at times than the Noct >(sacrilege, I know), but it's so much slower that I'm forced to use bounce >flash to get the shots. > >Those of us who, like you have to live with the "terrible" performance of >the 135 goggled Elmarit share your pain. Maybe if we spent lots more money >we could extract decent portraiture from the (what was it he called the >lens?) oh yes, "pooch." Seriously, that is a lovely shot. Though the URL >was off on the Noctilux, it was easy to find. Sometimes I love Noctilux >output at f1, othertimes, as in a couple of your plant shots, the "bokey" >makes me slightly seasick. > >Regards, > >Sonny > > >