Any 135mm shooters out there?

[ch1]

Thanks. I've been aware of that for some time... but my website is over 6 years old and 50MB deep, and it's a little late to pull it up now.

If you can't get to it, try typing the URL in the format of:

http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson ..... this works for most people who have trouble with the underscore.

At one time I did go through and retype every internal link in this format, only to then discover that these are cached copies and the host didn't update the cache real quickly, which caused other problems, so I had to go through it and change them all back.

I COULD just scrap the whole thing and start over, but I haven't got the energy...... I apologize for the inconvenience.

: ) =

Had no problem getting in using Mozilla

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I have the Firefox and I had no problem either.

 

[wlewisiii]

Has nothing to do with the browsers. The DNS nameserver software doesn't always translate the name to IP address correctly because _ is not a proper character for a domain name. The browser hands the name in the link to the nameserver and it either translates it or not. Most do, but not all - and those that don't includes the nameserver that Varjag uses.

William

 

[Silva Lining]

I often use a 135mm f/4 Super Dynaret on my Voigtlander Vitessa T. It is a nice, sharp lens that is quite contrasty. Focusing becomes v. difficult in lower light though

 

[hoot]

Noble sentiment.

But remember, Capa got himself blown up.

And, I, as a WTC 9/11 survivor (yeah, really) may not be too comfortable with the "up close and personal" in certain "situations".

Seems to me, let the lens suit the photo op - not the other way around.

Yeah, I knew someone wouldn't let me get away with that. 🙂

Seriously, though, many of the photos posted in this thread are gorgeous, but no photograph taken with a tele lens ever gave me GAS for one. OTOH, _any_ photo taken with an XPan and 30mm lens gives me the worst case of GAS ever, because that perspective exactly matches my way of seeing, while the tele view simply does not.

 

[rick oleson]

i'm kind of the opposite way round: i seem to see at about 85mm most of the time, anything around 35mm usually just doesn't show what i was seeing.

 

[Solinar]

Yep, 85mm to 90mm is easier for me conceptualize as well. They are also more compact and easier to use in hand-held photography.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I use my RF's mostly with 50 and up. Now, in the Nikon SLR line-up I've got a 20, 21, 24, 28, 35, and 35PC. I use an "E" screen (grid lines) with the F or F2 and their 100% viewfinders. I also have a few telephoto's for them, including an AIS 135mm F3.5 Nikkor. It is the same optical formula as the RF lens. Very long run.

 

[hoot]

Rick et al, I think it's great that different people see differently. Imagine how boring it would be if everyone took only wide angle photos, or only tele.

Gawd, Brian, why on earth do you need a 20 *and* a 21? I knew you were an equipment junkie, but this really takes the cake. 😛

 

[hugivza]

I have just acquired a 135/4 Jena Sonnar whilst on a recent trip to the UK, so was interested in the earlier comments on the lens. Whereas I have both Nikon and Canon 135 primes for SLR's, I have tended to use a shorter focal length - 85 or 105 mm for portraits. It will be interesting to see how the Sonnar works out, and more especially how good my use of the in built rangefinder is before it gets realigned.

 

[rick oleson]

The 135 Sonnar (like all Sonnars) is a good lens.... the central rangefinder spot of a Contax (or a Kiev) is something around the size of a 200mm frame, so it's not hard to use it as an aiming point for a 135 and estimate where the edges of the field will be.

I also made slip-on VF masks for the 85 and 135 lenses for the Contax II and IIa, which are fairly handy - but they slip on from the front, and won't go on the IIIa that you have pictured.... : ( =

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I use my RF's mostly with 50 and up. Now, in the Nikon SLR line-up I've got a 20, 21, 24, 28, 35, and 35PC. I use an "E" screen (grid lines) with the F or F2 and their 100% viewfinders. I also have a few telephoto's for them, including an AIS 135mm F3.5 Nikkor. It is the same optical formula as the RF lens. Very long run.

Speaking of the 135/3.5 Nikkor I found this set tonight in Contax mount. Although I use the 85 more often I couldn't pass on this:

 

[Alec]

Seriously, though, many of the photos posted in this thread are gorgeous, but no photograph taken with a tele lens ever gave me GAS for one. OTOH, _any_ photo taken with an XPan and 30mm lens gives me the worst case of GAS ever, because that perspective exactly matches my way of seeing, while the tele view simply does not.

Hello Ronnie!

The Tele-Elmar is one of the most demanding lenses I own (especially on an M2 lacking the frame for 135mm) but the contrast and resolution wide open are dazzling (even Erwin Puts has a hard time defining how the Apo Telyt is better 30 years later). I forced myself to use it for a whole 36 exposure roll (39 actually) one morning at the zoo this summer. I certainly wouldn't have liked to use a wide-angle with this tweety.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18098&cat=500&page=1

Probably the best bang for the buck in the very strange world of used Leitz lenses! But you can have mine if you bring a XpanII with any lens. 😛

Regards,

ag

 

[hoot]

That's a lovely photo, Alec... but still no GAS (in case you were trying). I'm not remotely interested in photographing birds, myself. 🙂 Whenever I go to the zoo, I tend to photogaph the people looking at the animals.

The Leica M Lens Price Guide puts a used 135/4 Tele-Elmar Type 1 at $375. That's not cheap. I got a collapsible 50/2 Summicron for 180 Euros - now *that* is cheap. It gets a heck of a lot of use, too. Anyone wanna buy a Jupiter-8 before it gathers dust? 😉

 

[Alec]

Hello Ronnie.
No I wasn't - I'm not selling. 😛
I got mine with a ding on the filter ring for next to nothing from my favourite Paris shop (Objectif Bastille). The nice salesman winced when I told him I wanted a rear cap free of charge on the deal.
IIRC it was under 150 EUR (a psychological threshold that made me think faster - reasoning like "I shouldn't care I don't have a 135mm frame because when there is one it's too small to be useful anyway").

 

[VinceC]

This thread has survived a bit longer than I expected, so I'll also point out that the 135mm can be used as a sports lens. It's helpful to learn the 1950s trick of "predictive focusing" -- focus a bit ahead of the action, then wait for them to get into the zone of focus.

 

[rick oleson]

I keep hearing about bargains..... but has anybody beat my $29 135mm hektor?

(cheap is good)

: ) =

 

[VinceC]

Nope. I paid closer to $100 for mine.

By the way, really enjoyed your site. For those having trouble viewing it, believe me, it's worth the effort.

 

[denishr]

I keep hearing about bargains..... but has anybody beat my $29 135mm hektor?

(cheap is good)

: ) =

I paid 25 EUR for mine, which is a bit more (something like $30?), but still... 😉

Denis

 

[hoot]

Now that *is* cheap. Where did you get it, Rick and Denis?