Jump to content

Tri-Elmar


waterden

Recommended Posts

What the self-appointed Forum Police fail to recognize while satisfying their obsessive need to exert power despite having nothing substantive to say on a topic, is that there might be people who have a great deal of information to offer that has not been previously posted...such as someone a)new to the forum with a Tri-Elmar; b)a regular who has gotten a Tri-Elmar since the last thread on the subject; c)someone who has had more experience with the Tri-Elmar since the last thread and has something additional to offer.

 

Martin, if you're still watching this thread and haven't been chased away from the forum by the rude volunteer initiation, feel free to e-mail me off-list for any info you need on the Tri-Elmar. I've had both versions and compared it to many primes from different generations...and I'm not a shill for Leica ;>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jay! Knew you had it in you to be positive! <g>

 

I have the second version TE and also have a third version (73-79) 35 Summi, and a fourth version (69-79) 50 Summi. In looking at f/4 and smaller I can't see a real difference in the quality of the image. I did shoot a wedding with it and the bride gushed over the detail she saw in the 4x6 prints (go figure).

 

I guess that is why I haven't sold it yet. It is a very convenient "street shooter" lens. Though as i do more digital with my 10D, I have been tempted to sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay not an attempt to police, but to suggest. There is a lot of information in the

archives on this lense, and you are correct that I have no personal knowledge of it. It

appears that no matter what one does to be helpful, there will always be some 'prick'

to suggest otherwise. To quote you, "to find hurt where none exist"...jf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<It appears that no matter what one does to be helpful, there will always be some 'prick' to suggest otherwise. To quote you, "to find hurt where none exist"...jf>>

 

Your two posts:

<<Use the 'Search" feature above for around 200 hits...jf>>

 

<<Not 'silly', just more fodder...jf>>

 

Seems like a case of the prick calling the kettle black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay

 

It's a pleasure to be able to agree with you 100%! What you suggest is correct, and it may also be that the questioner has already read the previous archived posts about 'whatever' and wants to know the opinions (which can change with time) that apply now.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 50 cron with a focussing tab. At f=4 I see no difference. I also have a 35 lux asph. Again, at f=4 I see no difference. Remember that the Tri Elmar is also an aspheric lens - that helped them correct aberrations slightly better and allowed the freedom of including the constraints introduced by the multiple focal length feature.

 

Problem for me is that f=4 is slow in a lot of situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>�Use the 'Search" feature above for around 200 hits...jf�

<BR>�Jay not an attempt to police, but to suggest. There is a lot of information in the archives on this lense,��</I>

<P>Anyone with an IQ above 50 can figure out that <B>everything, and then some,</B> about Leica-M�s has been discussed to the nth degree, perhaps beyond. Therefore, why not just shut down this site and make it �read-only.� No way!!! Fresh thought, and spin, is always welcome.

<P>To use an analogy, there�s nothing new about sex, so why does porn continue to sell so much? Surely, there's a market for "used" porn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

I've found the Tri-Elmar a great travel lens along with the 0.58 mag viewfinder body. At F4 and F5.6, I don't find anything lacking versus my 35 Lux-Asph. Since my Leitz 50mm are from the 50's and 60's, I don't wish to make the comparison. The first version of the Tri-Elmar can be bought at very good "Leica prices." The issues with this version are well documented on the forum, read up. I am using mine indoors much more than I had imagined. F4, fast film, TTL flash at -1.5EV and you have a super indoor party picture-taker. One thing I alway try to remember about this lens is the extra depth of focus you get at F4. If you are not careful, the background can be too well defined (possibly distracting). Therefore, memorize the rear edge of the DOF and manually set the lens for the hyperfocal focus setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin, a serious answer. I owned the 2nd Version of this lens for a short time. <I>(FYI, quite often you get responses from people who have never even touched the object about which they are such self-professed experts.)</I> Here are my observations:

<BR><B><U>Size:</U></B> The lens is quite large by Leica-M standards. To me, performance is more than just picture quality. If a lens is a pain in the ass to use, then what�s the point of top performance if I never take it out? This lens is annoyingly large (for me).

<BR><B><U>Filter:</U></B> It uses a 49mm thin filter (made by Leica for this lens and the 135 Apo). Expensive.

<BR><B><U>Hood:</U></B> It is the worst Leica-M hood I have ever come across. Thin metal, delicately shaped, looks as if it could be bent out of shape easily, and not cheap! I thus didn�t use it more than once. The lens with the hood, mounted on the camera body, is not a small package to carry around. One bump and the hood is bye bye.

<BR><B><U>Picture Quality:</U></B> Very nice. No difference here versus the primes. Unless you�re printing very large sizes. (And, as mentioned endlessly, it's f4 max.)

<BR><B><U>End Result:</U></B> I sold it before I could damage the hood, and now use a 35mm Summicron Asph and a Collapsible 50mm Summicron or Elmar. I�m very happy. Of course, such opinions are subjective, but to me Leica represents top quality in a <B><U>small</U></B> package, and the Tri-Elmar fails in this category. Best of luck in your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic . , jan 08, 2004; 10:39 p.m.

Martin, ...Here are my observations:

Size: The lens is quite large by Leica-M standards. To me, performance is more than just picture quality. If a lens is a pain in the ass to use, then what�s the point of top performance if I never take it out? This lens is annoyingly large (for me).

 

Vic, the lens is not much larger than the thin Elamrit 90. The ease of three focal lengthes is something one has ro decide on ones own.

 

Hood: It is the worst Leica-M hood I have ever come across. Thin metal, delicately shaped, looks as if it could be bent out of shape easily, and not cheap! I thus didn�t use it more than once. The lens with the hood, mounted on the camera body, is not a small package to carry around. One bump and the hood is bye bye.

 

Haven't run into that issue any more that the metal hoods for the 35/50's in my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very nice combo lens - elegant combination with M body.

 

Optic quality - just superb. I have used that quite a lot during my travel in Burma (Myanmar). I find this to be a great companion with a longer lens of other brand (in my case Canon with a 70-200 F4). That would give u a very usable range between 28 - 200.

 

I used that extensively when I am taking environmental portraits .. say in a village. F4 is perfectly fine for me .. of course you need to be a little confident in using slow shutter (say 30 or even 15)

 

In all.. this is a great travel len if you consder "elegant look of Lieca" is part of the fun in photography. I do :) Unfortunately, that has only kept me fun for one trip, my Tri-E was stolen in a trip in Praque ! I intended to buy another one but the price has gone up considerably since my first purchase !! I am now left only with 35 Summulux .. still elegantly look but I missed the 28 mm !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin, I had the pleasure of owning the first version of the lens

for a while. Although I have no complaints about its optical

qualities, and although I thought it was great to walk around with

the one lens and another faster lens just in case I ducked

indoors, I found it annoying to use. Everytime I tried to focus the

lens, grabbing what I thought was the focussing ring, I would

change focal lengths instead. Perhaps the newer version with

the focussing tab would alleviate my problem. I chose not to

trade up because it would have meant throwing away $1200

($700 loss in value plus the price difference between the old and

new). Instead, I sold it and suffered a $700 loss instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

<br><br>

 

It could be an expensive mistake to buy the 3E unless you're sure it's what you want. I used to own a version 2 3E and it was every bit as good optically as any primes I've tried, as far as I could tell. It's very convenient for daytime outdoor walkabout use, so it's a good companion for vacation photography.

<br><br>

Optical performance isn't really an issue. What one has to come to terms with, though, are things like:

<br><br>

- lack of speed (f/4); <br><br>

 

- large physical size, compared with prime lenses with focal lengths in the range 28-50mm;

<br><br>

- unwieldy and expensive hood , which didn't bother me personally because I don't use filters and so didn't feel the need for it;

<br><br>

- slightly awkward focal length selector, which usually doesn't quite click home properly at one focal length or another - in my case it was 28mm.

<br><br>

 

If you can borrow one and try it, it might help you decide if it's your kind of lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I respect Marcs (Williams, not gougenblahs) work

(and acerbic truths), the part of this lens I like the most ( and I've

never seen it mentioned )is that you can focus, and then click to

any of the three focal lengths without refocussing. And be

guarenteed razor sharp negs(Lack of coffee and sunshine

notwithsanding)

As a feature, this is bitching and saves a lot of time-( what's

convenience - speed, or convenience?)Incidentally, I'll fight every

mothers son in this bar.......

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, I didnt expect to find all these responses. Firstly, thank you all very much. This has helped and also added to what I found when I used the Search tab :). I have a Rokkor 40mm f2 (CLE version) prime, which is great and to an extent spans the 35/50 divide, although I still like 50 a lot too, but I wanted a 28 option and it seemed to me that there was not a lot of difference in speed or price for that matter between the Mk I 3E and the Mark IV Elmarit-M. (I hadnt realised there is a big difference between the MkI and MkII because I dont buy new). I am not overly concerned by weight because I find it helps to steady the camera and even "heavy" M lenses are pretty light by SLR comparison. I suspect from reading all your comments that Im just going to have to find one and try it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...