Re: [Leica] Views on the Leica 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit M

["Simon Lamb" <s_lamb@compuserve.com>]

Bob

Thanks for this information.  I think I may look at the 3.4 lens now, mainly
because of the size issue.

Simon

Amateur efforts at http://www.phoenixdb.co.uk/leica


Bob Bowman wrote:

>  I think that the 135 2.8 is a sleeper lens, but with the goggles, and the
> 70's or earlier design, (I know you're gone Erwin but someone help me
here,
> isn't this really an R lens in M clothing?) this lens is big, and heavy. I
> don't have the specs with me here, but just guessing I'd say that the 3.4
is
> maybe 2/3 the size  of the 2.8, or less. Then you have the goggles on top
of
> that.
> I look at the goggles two ways;
> one, they bring the little tiny 135 frame lines to the full VF size!  :-)
> two, they are heavy and awkward.  :-(
> I've got an old 135 4.5 Hektor, they are really cheap in Ebay. Tiny light
> 135, not a bad lens. But I never take it out. I always take the Elmarit.
Even
> with plenty of light.
> I just returned from my 5th grade daughter's school play. I took just  2
> lenses by mistake, my 70's 35 'cron, and the 135 2.8, (wanted the 90 'cron
> too). I didn't miss the 90. Given the choice I'd go withthe 35 & 90 every
> time, but it worked this evening.
> I guess what I'm saying in a lot of bandwidth is that I don't see the
value
> in spending the additional money for  the 3.4, despite the 2.8's age and
> heft. It's not a focal length I use that often.
>
> BTW did you read Kim's post on her sisters baby? Sounds like someone you
> could get some tips from.
>
> Bruce Bowman
> Killingworth CT
>
> In a message dated 5/25/00 5:53:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> s_lamb@compuserve.com writes:
>
> << Thanks for that response.  I will certainly give the lens a good check
>  although the dealer is very good and has had it checked already and rated
it
>  exc+.  How much smaller is the 135 f3.4?  I think perhaps the 90 f/2 AA
is
>  about the right maximum size for the M6 but I would like a longer length
>  lens. >>