[Leica] M 135 Opinions, Go Ask Tootsie and Opus

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

:-) And WOOF! to you too...

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Buzz Hausner
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:13 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions, Go Ask Tootsie and Opus


Nota bene, B.D., I agree entirely that 135mm lenses are inappropriate to
M bodies.  Hence my comment at the end of my last post, "I must
emphasize to anyone who has never used a 135 on an M body that if you
practice, practice, practice, you will get to Carnegie Hall at just
about the same time you can accurately frame with any 135 and you may
still want to consider that R4..."

Now, I confess that I own and use a 134/4.0 and it is a damn fine lens.
After years of practice, I am reasonably proficient at framing with the
Tele-Elmar. However, if I had enough call for a 135mm or unlimited
disposable income I would certainly get an SLR as the box behind any
lens longer than 90mm.  Indeed, I keep a 1968 vintage Nikon F as a
conversation piece and I have a 105/2.5 somewhere in the attic, although
I sold the 135/2.8 and 200mm Nikkors years ago.

We must agree to disagree about the merits of the 135/2.8.  Now, let's
talk about the "Skinny" Tele-Elmarit-M while we rig the 135/2.8 on her
leash and muzzle.

        Buzz Hausner

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+buzz=bethhardiman.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
B. D. Colen
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:45 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions, Go Ask Tootsie and Opus

I preface this retort by saying to all assembled that poor deluded Buzz
is one of my best friends, on list and off-list-face-to-face, as we live
within about 15 minutes of each other (and didn't even know of each
other's existence prior to meeting on the LUG :-) )

Sorry, Buzz - But...First off, the idea of a 135 on a rangefinder is
just plain silly to begin with - and that silliness explains why the
Nikon F took off like a shot among photojournalists...and why, if you go
back to those 'golden days' and look at photos of photographers, at
demos, wars, etc., and you'll often see one to two Leicas or Nikon RFs
and two Fs strung over neck and shoulders - often a 21 and 35 or 35 and
50 on the Leicas, and the venerable 105 2.5 and the 200 f4 on the
Nikons. 

Shooting with a naked 135 on an M is just a total pia - using a 90 at
any distance is bad enough, but that tiny frame, with tiny little people
in it, is silly. It was one thing when there were no good options. But
the 135 2.8 provides at least a compromise option. Yes, it's heavy. No,
it is not the sharpest piece of glass in the drawer. But it does produce
good images, as Sonny's little display atests - and heavy is a relative
term. And the goggles at least provide some magnification and sense of
what one is really shooting.

Can you stick the 135 2.8 in your pocket? Nope. But it's not the woofer
you'd make it out to be.

:-)

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Buzz Hausner
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] M 135 Opinions, Go Ask Tootsie and Opus


Come on, B.D., haven't Tootsie and Opus taught you to understand the
meaning of "bow-wow"?  The 135/2.8 is softer than other options,
exhibits less contrast than other options, is harder to frame than other
options, and is a whole lot bigger and heavier than other options.
What's to like other than an extra stop for which one can more easily
compensate in film choice or speed.  Bow wow.  Having spent most of my
working life in public service, I can definitely say that the 135/2.8 is
certainly not good enough for government work, at least in the State of
Maryland and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!

If money is an object, the late expression 135/4.0's cost about US$100
less than equivalent 2.8's.  If money is no object, than the 3.4 is the
only way to go for an M mount 135.

That said, I must emphasize to anyone who has never used a 135 on an M
body that if you practice, practice, practice, you will get to Carnegie
Hall at just about the same time you can accurately frame with any 135
and you may still want to consider that R4...

        Buzz Hausner


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information