Leica 135mm lens on an M8

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That, Howard, is because calculations like that do not take the most important parameters into consideration, i.e. variations in quality of eyesight ( if you take an average value half of us will do better) and training and skill....

 

Correct, Jaap. Nor do they consider tiredness in focusing muscles or holding the camera still with tiredness in hand-holding; no do they consider crop factor, nor the fact that all the parameters mentioned have been outdated by technological changes in image resolution, typical magnification etc.

 

The LFI article points out that the chart is out of date but that it matches the traditionally quoted values. That's why I emphasized that fact in my post.

 

All models are wrong, but some are useful. This graphic is useful only for showing relationships among the various parameters, not for a painstaking measurement along the line of "this line falls 0.2 mm below the 'acceptable' limit, so the lens can't be used at this aperture."

[Delfi_r]

I love both the Elmarit 135 mm, i have one from the last versions, and the Tele-Elmar, mine it's from 1963, and they deliver great results when are used properly.

 

The Elmarit it's good on focusing and framing. But i'ts heavy, and sometimes you need the Tele-Elmar. And then the viewfinder magnifier it's a must. But with some practice you can get great results with them without magnifier:

 

 

[pgk]

Well I've recently picked up a tele-Elmar and have just tried it on my M8 and find that its not too difficult to focus (seems pretty well spot on as well) and it produces excellent results. It has a real Mandler design feel about it too;). What really surprises me is the low prices that these lenses go for.

[lct]

...The Elmarit it's good on focusing and framing...with some practice you can get great results...

Even better with IR-cut fiters

[Double Negative]

A review (in progress) on the 4/145 Tele-Elmar-M.