Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Chris - I agree. Nobody has much respect for the 135 anymore. Funny, I don't really understand why. Perhaps folks are too timid and want to be farther from the subject as with a 180. I see a 180 as too long for any reasonable representation in portrait work and too short for much wildlife or landscape work. One of my best known pics was a shot of George Pataki I made during his campaign. I made it with a 135 Hektor (a c 1957 coated version). Image quality is superb (on TMY). I think the picture hangs in his office. My gallery sold it to the secretary of state. Now, if they ever find out I'm a democrat... I sold the 135 a few days after you and I were talking about it 6 months or so ago. I got $750 for it from a fellow in Edmonton. It was absolutely gorgeous, like new, in the box. I really didn't much enjoy using it, was not overly impressed with its performance (actually liked the Hektor better). I know this is heresy given all the info on the Tele-Elmarit-M 135, however, it just didn't fill my boat. Regards, Curt >Curt, > >I agree that the 135mm/2.8 lens makes sense on an SL. It is small and not as bulky as one of the 180mm lenses. However, its main asset is that it is affordable. This focal length appears to be an orphan. > >By the way, do you still have the 135mm Tele-Elmarit-M? > >Anyway, the SL cameras are great, except for the fact that they require mercury-oxide batteries. I prefer to use the M camera for most things. However, there are times when the SL is better. For example, it can be used with the Bellows II via the 14167 adapter. Then, one can even use the 135mm lens heads and the 65mm Elmar, a great lens. Or, you can use the focusing adapter from the Visoflex. Incidentally, an SL appears to cost less than the Visoflex III. > >Best of Light, > >Chris > > > > > > > >---------- >> Hi Group, >> >> I recently bought a mint SL recently on which to mount a 135/2.8, a focal >> length I get no satisfaction using on my M bodies. I absolutely love this >> camera - reminds me of the best of the best from my teenage years as a tyro >> (wishing I could own this instead of my Spotmatic). One thing I'm looking >> forward to is using my Hasselblad lenses on this body with one of those >> Zorkendorfer mounts (even shifts!). >> >> Wow, is this Heaven or what? >> >> Curt >> >> Chris wrote: >> >> >In my opinion, Richard should have explained to his wife that the SL is a >> >real classic that will probably never wear out. Besides it is a good >> >investment. Today's electronic cameras may not have spares available in just >> >a few years. Did we not hear some complaints about the Minolta CLE? >> > >> >IMHO, the SL is a great deal. The SL2 is better, but you have to look harder >> >to find one and pay much more money. On the other hand, the SL2 is a little >> >more compatible with the later R cameras. In terms of viewfinder performance >> >and light-meter sensitivity, the SL2 compares very well with the new R8. >> >> Elizabeth Mei Wong >> Birding with Berkshire County's Hoffman Bird Club or >> Women Outdoors at http://members.aol.com/womenout/index.htm >> >> Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A. >> >> Pittsfield, Massachusetts >> In the Berkshires, next door to Tanglewood >> >> > > > >