[Leica] The Tele elmarit 135 Is So A Real Pooch of a Lens

[buzz.hausner at verizon.net (Buzz Hausner)]

Hey, they're cheap enough; you bought one, so you can decide for yourself if
the lens is any good.  I think all of the 135 Elmarits had the same optical
formula, but I could be mistaken about that.  Even so, I have used
Expressions I and II and in my opinion they were both miserable.  I don't
know anything about the R series lenses, but I would never acquire an M lens
based on someone's evaluation of an R lens of similar focal length and
f-stop.

What is your unstated purpose for needing this lens?  It might make a good
portrait lens if you could solve the framing problem.  I for one would be
reluctant to use it as a paperweight because the edges of the lens mount
could etch fine paper.

Buzz


On 1/4/08 3:29 PM, "Michiel Fokkema" <michiel.fokkema@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> Thanks for all your reactions.
> I can't imagine it is that bad.
> I've read quit a few positive reactions on the net also.
> Doug Herr for instance says it is a fine lens. Yes the tele elmar is 
> better.
> I was interested in the difference between version 1/2 and 3. I have a
> version 2 R lens and am hoping the version M 1/2 will be close.
> I now have bought a version 1 for a very low price and hope it will
> serve its purpose. Otherwise it will make a fine paperweight:-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Michiel Fokkema
> 
> buzz.hausner@verizon.net wrote:
>> Well, if one considers a lens with exceedingly low contrast, soft edge
>> definition, and relatively low color separation to be "okay" then, yes, 
>> the
>> 135 f/2.8 is merely clumsy.  Make no mistake, in addition to these issues
>> regarding image quality, it is a big, heavy lens which is virtually
>> impossible to frame and a bitch...remember, I said it was a pooch...to 
>> focus,
>> especially with those eyes.  One could call it "clumsy," but that is being
>> kind.
>> 
>> Buzz