> > > Subject: [LRflex] Re: M8 135 puzzle From: Richard Ward > <ilovaussiesheps@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:42:40 -0400 On > Jun 11, 2012, at 11:00 AM, "Dr. Jeffrey L. T. von > Gluck"<jgluckphoto66@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> I've been using a 135/4 Tele-Elmar (1st version) on all my M cameras for >>> >>> >>> over 25 years. Never been disappointed with the results, but haven't >>> used it on any digital bodies, just film. (See my article in the vol. >>> 45, No. 1, 2012, LHSA Viewfinder.) Much lighter than the "goggles" >>> version if you can live with f/4. >>> >>> Good luck! >>> >>> Jeff Gluck >> >> > >Thanks for the info Jeff. > I am starting to really like that lens as an option. Query: Do you use a > viewfinder magnifier with your Tele-Elmar? I've gotten 'ok' with focusing my > 90 Elmarit accurately when it's wide open, but it's been challenging. > >What is your opinion of the Goggles 135? Before going with the tele-elmar I am >giving the alternatives a hard look. > >Sincerely >Richard in Michigan > Richard, I haven't had to use a magnifier as most of my shots have been at infinity, but I do have the 1.25X magnifier in my bag, just in case. I traded away my 135/2.8 Elmarit with optical viewing unit decades ago. First, it was just too heavy, and second, the goggles gave too much of a tunnel vision view. You cannot see too much outside the framelines, whereas you can without the goggles using the camera's 135mm framelines. My M7 has a .58 viewfinder, so on that body I must use a shoe-mounted brightline viewfinder as the camera lacks the 135mm framelines, but that's not a concern with the other M bodies that have the 135mm lines. If you want to see how the 135/2.8 feels, borrow it from someone or check it out on your camera at a shop. Jeff Gluck ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/