[Leica] A question for Ted, 135 lens

[jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier)]

I completely agree with you Ted but I do not carry two camera systems 
anymore. So a 135 in the pocket is handy sometimes though, as you point 
out, it is not the ideal solution.

John Collier

On 21-Feb-05, at 5:03 PM, Ted Grant wrote:

> John Collier offered:
>> The 135/2.8 Elmarit-M (second version) is a very good lens. Not as 
>> sharp as the T-E or APO wide open but not too bad. Typical of long 
>> f/2.8 lenses of the period with the usual pleasant "Leitz" rendition 
>> wide open as opposed to the more "clinical" rendition of the Japanese 
>> lenses (with the exception of the 105/2.5). Mind you the 135/2.8E-M 
>> is a huge lens on an M. I only use mine in indoor/lowlight situations 
>> -- read: seldom.
>
> Sorry mate, for my money using any 135mm lens on an M camera is a 
> waste of time and eye strain!
>
> I believe I said in an earlier post I bought one for an assignment 
> where I required being extra ordinarily quiet and yet have a bit of 
> reach. Used it on the assignment and everytime I took it in hand and 
> to my eye I hated the lens and as soon as the project was finished I 
> sold it at a loss just to get rid of it!
>
> Anything longer than a 90mm is too long for an M viewfinder, as far as 
> I'm concerned. And although I have a 90 Summicron f2.0 which I use 
> occasionally, I much prefer to shoot with my "long lens"  the 
> Noctilux!
>
> If I need longer than 50....  then it's the R8. At least you can 
> properly see what the hell you're looking at.