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

[hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)]

Yes Raimo, of course you are correct. Nevertheless, the Tele Elmar f4 135 
performs so well that is reported/regarded as very near
the f3.4 APO version. I think that is what David was indicating.
I have one as well as its earlier incarnation and I consider it to be a 
superb lens, especially as it can be got for a fraction of
the APO Telyt's price.

Cheers, Geoff
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/
 


  

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [Leica] The Tele elmarit 135 Is So A Real Pooch of a Lens

APO means apochromatic correction of the lens, there are no apochromatic 
elements.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


----- Original Message ----- 
Subject: Re: [Leica] The Tele elmarit 135 Is So A Real Pooch of a Lens


>I have used the 135/2.8 Elmarit R lens long time ago as one of my very 
>first R lenses with satisfaction.  I remember it performed pretty well.  I 
>once used the M version with blurriness and later heard about fine-tuning 
>on each M body you use.  Other than that, I would say optically it is a 
>good performer as far as I experienced.
>  For M, I would recommend the Tele-Elmar which is a stellar performer.  It 
> is so close to F3.4 APO version that it is considered to have an APO 
> element as many of you already know.
>
>  Best Wishes,
>  David
>
> Buzz Hausner <buzz.hausner@verizon.net> 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" 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it 
> now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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