Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Buzz, There were three versions. First one only for M. Second version for M and R but this version seems to be very close to version 1. Therefore I call this version 1/2. Version 3 for M and R are the same optical. So, performance wise the R and M lens are the same! Please check here:http://www.imx.nl/photo/download.html and download Erwin's book. (and make a donation) I'm working on a project with very low light for which I sometimes need a longer focal length. The 135/2.8 is the only choice. I know the Tele elmar is better but every stop counts even when using fast film. Cheers, Michiel Fokkema Buzz Hausner wrote: > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >