Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEEE32.D94B4240
Content-Type: text/plain
I owned an f2.8/135 and found it big, heavy, and difficult to focus. Hated
the goggled viewfinder. The pictures I took with it were not particularly
contrasty-- at least not to my taste-- and were definitely softer than the
results with my f4. Now the f4/135 I still own and use; great lens and
relatively cheap at present. I own and prefer the E39 version with the
reversible hood, but I always prefer E39 lenses with reversible hoods in
every available length.
Buzz Hausner
- -----Original Message-----
From: Alex Brattell [mailto:alex@zetetic.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 8:33 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] 135mm 2.8 question
There's never any mention of the 135mm 2.8 goggled lens for the M.
I'd consider one for the occassional portrait or stage photography (can't
quite reach over the orchestra pit with the 90mm). Wouldn't be able to
justify a new 3.4 apo as 135mm is not a favourite focal length for me.
Is this lens unpopular due to its size, or performance or both?
Thanks
Alex
____________________________________________
alex@zetetic.co.uk
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~abrattell/
___________________________________________
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEEE32.D94B4240
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.0.1460.9">
<TITLE>RE: [Leica] 135mm 2.8 question</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I owned an f2.8/135 and found it big, heavy, and =
difficult to focus. Hated the goggled viewfinder. The =
pictures I took with it were not particularly contrasty-- at least not =
to my taste-- and were definitely softer than the results with my =
f4. Now the f4/135 I still own and use; great lens and relatively =
cheap at present. I own and prefer the E39 version with the =
reversible hood, but I always prefer E39 lenses with reversible hoods =
in every available length.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>Buzz =
Hausner</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Alex Brattell [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:alex@zetetic.co.uk" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">mailto:alex@zetetic.co.uk</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 8:33 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: [Leica] 135mm 2.8 question</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There's never any mention of the 135mm 2.8 goggled =
lens for the M.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'd consider one for the occassional portrait or =
stage photography (can't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>quite reach over the orchestra pit with the 90mm). =
Wouldn't be able to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>justify a new 3.4 apo as 135mm is not a favourite =
focal length for me.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Is this lens unpopular due to its size, or =
performance or both?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Alex</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>____________________________________________</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2> &nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; alex@zetetic.co.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~abrattell/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~abrattell/</A></FONT=
>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>___________________________________________</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEEE32.D94B4240--