Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 ----- From: "DL" <iilbz@yahoo.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:26 AM 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 >