Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Buzz old buddy, Good to hear yer still alive and kicking! :-) Purging your negative thoughts about Leica is something good for the soul once in a while! :-) Makes you feel better when some unsuspecting thing goes wrong. :-) Now this subject of the 135mm 2.8 on a CL maybe just the thing. However the 135mm for my use on a Leica M camera is a burden of a lens way too big and cumbersome. I had an assignment early on where I needed extra reach but the quietness of an M. So I bought the 135, put it on an M6 and nearly dropped the lot to a concrete floor. At that moment I made up my mind as soon as the shoot was over the lens was going to be history! And it was the day after the shoot, sold it for less than I paid just to get it out of my face and hands. :-( As it just isn't what an M camera is all about. I'd have used my R7's or whatever at the time other than for the noise so had to go with the M and 135nmm. It never was my cup of tea as it's too big for use on an M. The longest lens for an M is the 90 which I've used on M cameras since 1967. My preference in equipment is anything longer than a 50mm Noctilux should be used on an R model. But as I've learned about gear, "it's too each his own" for comfort of hands, eye and what subjects the photographer is shooting. Just my past experience with the 135mm. ted