Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M
From: Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:33:48 -0400
References: <3.0.2.32.20030709231531.01086a14@pop.infionline.net>

At 09:00 PM 7/9/03 -0700, SML wrote:
>Hello Marc,
>
>  Are you sure of what you were saying about the 135/4 Elmar being superior
>to the 135/4 Tele-Elmar?  I do not remember any single one user comments
>about the Elmar being superior to the Tele-Elmar.  I am wondering if you
>meant the other way around.


I really hate to toss the word "superior" around without a referent.

It has been my experience, and that of many other users and analysts, that
the 4/135 Elmar is optically superior to the compressed Tele's which
followed it in production.  Any time you compromise an optical axis, there
are compromises to make, and the Tele-Elmar designs are not as satisfactory
on all points as is the Elmar.  Leitz seems to have been quite affronted by
Bertele's 4/13.5cm Sonnar, which was a true telephoto and which blew the
Hektor into the weeds.

To make this clearer, remember that the Hektor and Elmar were not
telephotos:  that is, they were exactly 13.5cm long.  When Leitz decided on
the Tele-Elmar, they condensed the length, and thus compromised quality.

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

Replies: Reply from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M)
Reply from "SML" <leirex@access4less.net> (Re: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M)
In reply to: Message from Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net> (Re: [Leica] Opinions Please 135mm lens for M)