Does anyone use an M3 as intended?

I used to have a 135/2.8 for my Minolta SLR system and it was a very good portrait lens. I never quite got the hang of using it for pictorial stuff although I think I could now. It was useless for sports, as I found when I tried to cover a rugby match. It's said that you have to go to 300mm before you get a lens that can pick out more distant details than the human eye can.
 
Complete kit

Complete kit

Austerby said:
The M3 came with 50mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses. Does anyone just use this set with their M3. Is it liberating or inhibiting?
Click to expand...

I'm blessed to have the 50 DR, 28 Summaron 2.8 w/goggles (gives me the full frame without mashing my eyeglasses against my face), 90 TE-M ("thin"), and the 135 Elmar. I like it that all are contemporaneous with the M3 (1960) except the 90 which is from 1979, & that all take the same filter size.

Thought the 135 would be the orphan in the group, but I'm really pleased with its performance; and it focuses so easily.
 
21, 50, 90 and 135, so all the framelines, and for framing the 21, no M would work, so I might as well get maximum focussing accuracy by using the M3 :)
 
Austerby said:
The M3 came with 50mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses. Does anyone just use this set with their M3. Is it liberating or inhibiting?
Click to expand...

Yes....its all that I need.
The 135 doesn`t see much use though.
I bought it to use out in the field for equestrian sports but I can`t track the action as well as I can with a 135 on an SLR.
I find also that there is a curious dis connection with the subject at that focal length with a Rf.
So its 50 and 90 for me.
 
Interesting responses, thanks all. It's notable just how many are using wide angle lenses on the M3, not letting the viewfinder restrict them.

I posed the question as I'm currently going through my regular agonising over which camera and lenses to take on holiday with me. I clearly have too much gear (no apologies for this though) but I enjoy these deliberations.

One day to go and I still haven't made my mind up yet...
 
Michael Markey said:
Yes....its all that I need.
The 135 doesn`t see much use though.
I bought it to use out in the field for equestrian sports but I can`t track the action as well as I can with a 135 on an SLR.
I find also that there is a curious dis connection with the subject at that focal length with a Rf.
So its 50 and 90 for me.
Click to expand...


That's a good way to describe it Michael.

135mm just feels strange on an RF camera ... like parking too far back at the drive in! :D
 
"Does anyone use an M3 as intended?"

The M3 was not intended to be used with only 50, 90 and 135mm lenses.
There are googled lenses for 35mm and also for 135mm introduced later that effectively cover most of the spectrum. Anything wider than 35mm had to use an external finder.
Even today the use of an M with 24mm or wider requires an external finder.
At one time I had a complete set of 35mm RF, 50mm Summicron, 90mm Summicron and 135mm f2.8RF for my M3.
I did not feel limited in anyway with the lenses available.-Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom