Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:02 PM 7/14/02 -0600, Mike Stoesz wrote: >Good day; > >I have recently been on a Leica buying/trading binge and have acquired >2 Leica M-3's (a double-stroke and a single-stroke), and a Leica >Standard. I have been using my Canon LTM lenses on the M's so far, >(50f1.8, 50f1.2, 85f1.9, 100f4 chrome, 100f3.5 black/chrome, 100f3.5 >black, and 135f3.5 chrome). > >I wish to acquire a Leica 135mm lens for use at coffeeshops, stage >shows, dance productions. Unfortunately the current 135f3.4 is out of >my affordability range. How do the 135f2.8 Elmarit and the 135f4 >Tele-Elmar compare for my intended use. I am comfortable using Ilford >Delta 3200 and Fuji Neopan 1600 as film choices and can use a monopod >or shoulder brace if needed. > >What are the advantages/disadvantages of each of these lenses from >personal experiences? Neither would be the ideal choice. The 4/135 Elmar should be your first choice, as it is optically a magnificent lens. If that is still beyond your means, a Soviet/Post-Soviet 4/135 Jupiter-11 is quite close, albeit this requires an adapter to work on an M camera. I shot professionally for several years with a 2.8/135 and 4/135 Tele, and the results were okay. But those from the 4/135 Elmar and Jupiter-11 were clearly superior -- and, bluntly, the 2.4/135 APO-Telyt (!) is a generation beyond any of these. Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html