Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/01/18

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

Subject: [Leica] Vedr: Leica Elmarit 135 mm, f/2.8
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:18:18 -0500

Brittle is an old LUG word used as a matter of fact for modern aspheric
glass so its only natural you'd use it.  We used to use it all the time on
the lug of a decade past. But at this point Its just one of my buttons. As
I'm heavily invested in the stuff both in money and time and materials. As
in large darkroom prints made with the 35 Summicron ASPH and 90 APO ASPH and
other farily current Leica glass they've proved to be an investment with no
down side. The bokeh is to die for. Not bunchy. No less smooth than my Leitz
glass.
I believe that modern lens design and bokeh are not at odds.
There is little to be gained form getting old glass other than as I just
said financial savings. You get less contrast and resolution. The advantages
to less contrast and resolution are touted on the lists but its a straw
horse. When it comes to lens specs less is not more. Less is less. More is
more. Me I use cheap glass all the time but I don't use them glad they are
cheap and saying they are the bee's knees. I wait for the day that I can get
something better. And that day comes as I'm patient and I wait and I just
outlast them.

The 21 and 24 ASPH's are twins and even more so they are MY twins as I use
them both. In Cologne I shot rolls of film with my 21 but with the 24
finder. The finders are also twins. So I ended up getting a lot more than I
bargained for in the end. And was happy to be able to crop.
Me I never got soft shoulders from my 21 but I don't know how often I used
it wide open. I still have it. When I see what digital correction does to
even my fixed nikon glass I'm glad I still have it.  But I'd love a Super
Angulon on or Biogon or just anything symmetrical.
I'd love the new Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH.
That would for me make the ultimate stocking stuffer.
Not symmetrical. But everything else. And computers have come a long way.
Especially with un necessarily fast glass.
-- 
Mark R.
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/winterdays/


> From: John Collier <jbcollier at shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:49:39 -0700
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Vedr:  Leica Elmarit 135 mm, f/2.8
> 
> Brittle was not meant to be offensive, thug I can see how it could be taken
> that way, my bad. Would you have been happy with the word "razor"?
> 
> I have multiple 135 lenses: Elmarit, Elmar and Hektor, and, each shines in
> different applications. I was using the 135/2.8-M wide open just today on 
> the
> M8. Makes for a great, but not "brittle" sharp, 180ish mm. Very useable 
> with
> the goggles though I think I should have used a monopod as I was shooting 
> at
> 1/30 even with the ISO bumped to 2500.
> 
> Oh well, my point in the post was that he might be quite happy with a 
> 1350/2.8
> as long as he is not looking for that modern Leica Asph look -- which most
> certainly an Elmarit will not deliver.
> 
> I presently have several Asph lenses and have owned a sampling from 21 
> thought
> to 90. I have been simply delighted with them all except the 21 which was a
> little too soft in the corners wide open. I traded it on a 24 and the 
> corners
> are better and I use my Ted Grant approved sneakers to back up a single 
> step
> to a get what I want.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> On 2012-01-17, at 10:21 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
>> John  the Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm / f3.4 APO  has nothing "brittle" about
>> it. Its just the culmination of excellent second to none Leica lens design
>> in that focal length.  There is no downside to more current and better
>> optical design.. That's a LUG myth one of many. And the 3.4 APO wide open
>> shows excellent contrast and sharpness as you'd expect.
>> 
>> "Brittle" is the term people give to current Leica glass usually using
>> Aspherics which they don't feel like paying for as they already have the
>> focal lengh in an older version... Having paid big money for it its now no
>> longer the sharpest lens in the catalog. So the scramble for really weak
>> rationalizations that no one should have fallen for.
>> 
>> The 2.8 135mm can be defined by how with its built in eyes and large bulk 
>> it
>> transforms your M into another beast entirely.
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/135mm-f28/D3S_6333-1200.jpg
>> A nice pic of it but not on a body.
>> Its lens design is of a few generations back but I bet it does ok in its
>> results compared to consumer grade optics out now. Stuff which cost a few
>> hundred bucks.
>> The built in eyes do help with the use of the lens getting it in focus. 
>> You
>> don't look though the smallest frame but the one made for the 90 so 
>> there's
>> that.
>> I shot a roll with one once by the end of the roll I was very used to its
>> good balance on the camera. Not one shot was out of focus. The results
>> seemed at least as good as what I was used to with nikon maybe better but 
>> it
>> was not of the same subject in a direct comparison.
>> But its a bit of a monster. If it was cheap enough it might be a deal.
>> 
>> And the 3.4 is compact and lightweight in comparison and makes 135mm focal
>> lengh results something else entirely. I have a lot of glass in that range
>> and this outclasses them by far. It certainly makes results from a 3.5 or
>> 2.8 135 Nikkor look dim and I have them both.
>> The 135 focal lengh is very viable for the M system. Some think its not
>> seemly. I've used mine extensively. It was the third lens I owned. I got 
>> it
>> before I got a 35mm lens.
>> 
>> 
>> - old Leitz glass is admired for its supposed silky smoothness and 
>> wonderful
>> bokeh... all that is total garbage.  The only upside to old glass is it 
>> cost
>> less. And you may already have it.
>> And if you already have it you should use it if you're doing ok with it.
>> Putting old glass on a pedestal is one thing I'm not fond of but the 
>> tearing
>> down of the latest out from Leica and other companies as if their is some
>> down side to the highest resolution and contrast you can get is dim 
>> thinking
>> or wishing.
>> My advice is get the best lens you can't afford.
>> Its all about glass.
>> The camera just keeps the film dark
>> Someone said that on the lug awhile back.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




In reply to: Message from jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier) ([Leica] Vedr: Leica Elmarit 135 mm, f/2.8)