tri- elmar 28-35-50

I am about to purchase an m6ttl with .72 viewfinder. Can anyone

make a recommendation whether it makes sense to purchase the tri-

elmar 28-35-50 lens versus the purchase of each size lens

separately? Thank you.

It depends. If you believe the internet crap that Leica's are only good for shooting surreptitious pictures of strangers in dim light then you'll need the single focal length lenses for their speed. If you will be using the camera mostly in average but not necessarily bright light, and/or with ISO 400 or faster film when the light is lower, then the Tri-Elmar is a very convenient lens. Personally I use the Tri-Elmar for about 75% of my Leica photography, with the 135mm used for about 20%, a 21 about 4%, and the 35/1.4 the other 1% when f/4 is really too slow.

Oh no here we go again....

 

But more seriously, the Tr-Elmar is an excellent lens. Erwin Puts glows very highly, and a lot of the images in my gallery from the demonstrations from this past winter are from this lens.

 

For many the Leica was meant to be small and compact (and the primes that the Tri Elmar covers fit that bill). The Tri Elmar offers convenience at a slower aperture. I would assume from your interest in this lens, that speed is not a major consideration. If that is the case you would be hard pressed to see a difference in most cases between the Tri Elmar and primes.

 

I really love this lens. I have the 49mm with the DOF scales, which makes the lens so sweet to use. That is probably why I have wrestled so long since my move towards digital, as to whether to keep this or sell off. I really hate it when equipment like this doesn't get used. But it is such a sweet lens.

Yeah,

 

It makes sense to have this lens as part of a perfect all-around travel kit - pretty versatile. Stop tempting me. The reason I don't have one isn't speed: I had the bases covered with primes before its introduction, and have only recently started selling less used gear. I don't object to "zooms" (or zooms vs. primes) either, it was part of my Nikon kit before it was stolen.

 

I have never seen, handled, or tested one.

If it is your first Leica lens the Tri Elmar could be a good buy. Only could be. It is big. It is slow by comparison to others (and Jay puts this into a sensible perspective). It may be a good way to finesse your choice of other lenses, even in the 28, 35, and 50mm's bracket, because you will already have an alternative on your Tri Elmar so you won't be 'spooked' into rash purchases. And the Tri Elmar is a great lens with superb image quality. On the other hand, if you purchased the M6 solely for discrete 'street' shooting a 35mm 'cron may be all you need. Personally I think the Tri Elmar is a lens that is very easy to live with for 80% of the time. The other 20% it will have you gnashing your teeth.

If you don't have the need for speed, get the Tri-Elmar.

You can always add a Summicron 50/f2.0 as your highspeed lens.

 

Buying individual 28,35 and 50mm lenses is not going to be cheap.

 

A friend of mine uses the Tri-Elmar and 35/f1.4 ASPH.

That setup has pretty much replaced the rest of his gear.

 

Feli

Forgot to mention that my super light weight kit is with the Tri Elmar and a 35/2 Summi packed in a Tamrac World Correspondent small shoulder bag.....

I always had mixed feelings about the Tri-Elmar. On the one

hand, there is the convenience of being able to switch between

the various focal lengths in an instant - so much quicker than

changing lenses. This is a feature that shouldn't be

underestimated. It's also useful for taking a narrower meter

reading when using the wider focal lengths - e.g. if you are

shooting at the 28mm setting it only takes a second to quickly

switch to the 50mm setting to meter the shot and then return to

the wider setting. However, I found that the lens does have its

minuses. First, I wasn't keen on the balance of the lens. With the

motor drive attached it was okay but without the drive the 3E

makes the M camera very 'lens heavy'. Second, the F4 maximum

aperture can be surprisingly annoying. I distinctly remember

travelling light to Denmark last Winter with the 3E, 90/2.8 and

some Kodachrome 200 and finding myself constantly up against

the F4 maximum aperture trying to get my preferred 1/60th or 1/

125th handheld shutter speeds - even during the middle of the

day. The third gotcha with this lens - and the factor which

eventually persuaded me to sell it - is that it seems to be

susceptible to unpredictable veiling flare at the 50mm setting

(even with the accessory hood attached). The flare is not

extreme but it is most certainly there in a number of shots where

I wouldn't have expected it at all.

I think the first lens should be the 35mmf2 summicron. You will learn what RF photography is all about from it. And you can do a lifetime of photography with it. I have the 3E lens but I never like its size and weight.

 

My two cents.

 

Chi

Todd, I do a lot of travel photography. The smartest thing I've done

for that purpose was get a TriElmar. That coupled with a 90mm makes a

perfect kit for me...convenient, light weight and versatile. I make

up the relatively slow speed with faster film...Im amazed at the

quality of the Provia 400F slide film! I did get the rather

expensive sunshade that matched the TriElmar and use it always,

consequently I've never had a flare problem. The one disadvantage is

the lack of shallow depth of field which is sometimes handy for people

photography. In a nutshell, GO FOR IT!

It seems to me that one of the primary benefits of a RF camera is the ability to hand hold at lower shutter speeds since there is no mirror slap issue as with an SLR. While this can help you utilize the TE, it seems that you won't be able to take advantage of most indoor shooting situations (for which a cron is good and a lux excellent) without a flash. If you are a flash shooter (considering the m6ttl for this reason?) perhaps this is not a major issue; however, you might want to consider a faster lens instead of, or in addition to, the TE. Or perhaps one of the faster VC lenses in addition to the TE if you need the versatility but can't afford 2 Leica lenses.

Unfortunately in the early to mid 80's when I bought my RF setup, the TE was unavailable. Except for available darkness photos using the 50 F2 or the 35F1.4, I am always using the lenses stopped down 3 stops. I would go for the TE and used 90F2.8 . Use the setup for a while if you end up needing speed get the 35 F1.2 from Bessa, or better yet get a used 35F1.4 summilux on a Hexar RF with high speed film.

 

Luckily I don't have your problem!

 

GS

If you need to wear glasses when using your Leica, you might find the .72 viewfinder unsuitable for the 28mm frameline. However, it should be no problem for the 35mm frameline. I suggest you try it before you go for a 3E or any other 28mm lens.

 

I don't consider that the 3E really replaces three different focal length lenses, because I doubt if many people would choose to own all three of those focal lengths (28mm & 35mm & 50mm). Of those three focal lengths, most people would choose either a 28mm or a 35mm, plus a 50mm. So, in practical terms, the 3E replaces only two lenses.

 

Furthermore, the 3E is slow enough that you will probably want to buy at least one fast lens, within the same focal length range, for low light: say, a 35mm 'lux or a 50mm 'lux. I started off with a 3E plus a 90 Elmarit-M and subsequently added a 50 'lux for low light. I found the 3E every bit as good, optically, as it's reputed to be. It is rather heavy and bulky, though.

 

Now, after 20 months of using the 3E lens, I've finally traded it in for a 35 'cron Asph. I just wasn't using the 3E enough. When I went traveling, I found that I was just as likely to want to take pictures in dim light as in bright light, so I couldn't really take only the 3E with me. That being the case, I decided that I'd rather encumber myself with two fast lenses (35 'cron and 50 'lux) than with one fast lens and one slow lens.

 

Frankly, like me, you might find the 35mm focal length so versatile that you don't really need the flexibility of the 3E anyway. So, I suggest you think about it before you take the plunge.

The Tri-Elmar is about the same weight as and a couple mm shorter than the 90mm f:2.8 Elmarit M. It's a whole lot smaller and lighter than a set of 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens together. Since I shoot mostly at f:5.6 and f:8 outdoors, I clearly don't need an f:2 lens for the vast majority of my shooting.

 

The ease of changing focal lengths is a huge advantage. Image quality is superb. And I get photographs I would otherwise miss because carrying several lenses is such a pain, I would often have left behind the lens I needed for a shot.

 

So the Tri-Elmar has become the lens I use most, followed by the 90 f:2.8, the 21 f:2.8 and the 135 f:4, in that order. The 50 and 35mm Summicrons are sitting on the shelf.

 

PJW

I had one; I sold it. I don't know what are your shooting priorities or the light you prefer to shoot in, but would like to highlight some points I covered in my own decision for your consideration, in no particular order. Might not be a bad idea (if possible) to rent one.

 

It is a very sharp lens and very convenient. F4 means DOF effects have a limit. F4 means (generally) faster films indoors, and outdoor shooting in good light. Balance with the body - it does tend to make the combination lens heavy. Length - the hood is recommended, and this makes it longer, and you need to find a solution if you like to have the cap on with the hood attached, since it's a pain to have a regular cap then fits inside the hood (I ended up with hood and filter, no cap).

 

FYI, and this should not influence your decision, I ended up with 0.72 / 24 2.8 / 35 2.0 / 50 1.0. Happy shopping :-)

Everyone has their opinions. I think the Tri-elmar is very practical, but I just want to share my experiences:

 

1) I have a Tri-elmar 2nd version that I used quite a lot. I carry ift with a 35mm f1.4 ASPH and a 21mm on all my travels. The bright Tri-elmar for sunny days with slides, and the summilux for evening-nightime with high speed film.

 

I was quite satisfied with my Tri-elmar for a long time. Then I carefully look at my pictures and I find the Summilux has a biting sharpness / contrast (evn when wide open) that the 3-E lacks. The Summilux is realy an amazing piece of glass.

 

2) The 3-E is supposed to be pretty good at flare suppression. However, I notice that flare occurs in quite a few of my shots. I carefully check my own lens for haze and/or fungus, but thankfully that had not developed. It turns out that the 3-E has a lot of elements, and for some reason a a mist that does not dissipate easily will develop if you take it from a cool place (say an air-conditioned room) to a warmer one (outside). And it may take half an hour for the mist to completely dissipate , maybe longer if you keep the lens in your camera bag. And the worst thing is you cannot see this while using the camera.

 

This is not a case commonly reported, but as I live in Hong Kong, it is a little bit of a problem for me. I just have to be more careful.

"I doubt if many people would choose to own all three of those focal lengths (28mm & 35mm & 50mm). Of those three focal lengths, most people would choose either a 28mm or a 35mm, plus a 50mm. So, in practical terms, the 3E replaces only two lenses."

 

That's quite right, for travel anyway. I usually travel with a VC 28/3.5 and a Nokton 50/1.5. The 28 is so tiny it's like a fat body cap, and covers the daytime wide angle function at a half stop faster than the TE. It also fits in the handy Leica soft leather case.

 

The Nokton covers 50, plus available light situations (which the TE definitely can't do). Its three stops (!) faster than the TE. These two lenses do more than the TE, with less size and weight, at similar optical quality, and don't even talk about cost.

 

I find myself leaving the 35 'cron asph at home, unless I'm going out with only one lens. With this kit, you don't need any kind of bag. One lens on the camera, the other in a pocket.

"I doubt if many people would choose to own all three of those focal lengths (28mm & 35mm & 50mm)"

 

Well, call me odd if you like, but I have all three lenses, because I love the 28-50mm range and I like to have the subtleties of the three lenses. I wouldn't take all three with me at once, but I like to have the choice ('hmm, today I feel like a 35mm', is how my mind works). I've just added another 50mm, (the Summar) to the kit for its softer effect. The TriElmar wasn't around when I bought my lenses, but I am occasionally tempted by it as most of the time I do not need the speed of the prime lenses. I would not get rid of the primes, though.

 

Cheers

 

Alan

Todd,

I've been here.

I took the M6ttl 0.72, Tri Elimar / 90mm f2 ASPH route last February. Both lenses were second hand (should that be previously owned?), my thoughts were similar to your own. I class myself as a "snapper", but love the qualitys the leica gives/imposes. I agree with some aspects of most of the things posted, but would offer the following recently aquired observations.

 

Find a good Pro lab. The improvement is greater than any other.

 

The Tri elmar is wonderful - watch a picture evolve in front of your eyes - change focal length to frame it, click.

 

It's a serious piece of glass, with practice you can hand hold at a 1/30th. In most circumstances f4 is fine, f5.6 is amazing. Shoot 400asa film, the differences between 200asa & 400asa are small.

 

Take pictures and don't worry to much about exposure - use the films latitude.

 

The most enjoyable thing about the tri elmar / M6 (any leica?) is you take control. Low light, slow shutter, large aperture, you decide.

 

I've started taking THE picture I want and almost, almost ignoring the rest. I'm learning & enjoying it.

 

It's a lot of money - you got to enjoy it.

 

Best of luck with your decision - get used to making them, that's the fun.

If you test the T-E, you'll buy it -- and love it. My traveling kit is the ("old") T-E, the "thin" 90mm Tele-Elmarit, and the 135 Tele-Elmarit. If the travel involves Scandinavia or northern Russia in the mid-winter, my pre-ASPH 35mm Lux gets added.

It depends on your shooting style really.

 

I've always been intrigued by the tri-elmar, but then again I've been intrigued by carrying 3 cameras at a time and always find that to be a mistake.

 

For me if I focus on one thing I can usually do it better. Setting limits is a positive, too many options can clog up the operation of what I'm trying to accomplish.

 

Again, to me, as a street shooter there's nothing better than a 35mm lens that's compact and gets the job done. It's quicker to shoot with right off the bat than a tri-elmar because you've eliminated one of the choices you have to make. I simplify technical aspects, then go after the objective- my picture.

 

Yes, an M can be versatile, but it's famous for being a specialty tool.