Tri-Elmar Questions

[budc]

I spent some time searching the archives but didn't see answers to these questions about the current 3E:

 

<p>

 

- Is there a lens hood for it?

- Will the current swing-out polarizer work with it?

- Is the color rendtion neutral, warm or cool?

- How does it compare at f/4.0 to the latest non-ASPH 28, 35 and 50 in terms of contrast?

- What size filters does it take?

[paul_chefurka1]

There is a lens hood. It's a big sucker, though, and I haven't heard

of many people using it. The lens certainly doesn't need it for

flare protection - it's one of the most flare-proof lenses I've

used. I think the colour rendition is pretty neutral, but I'm not

terribly sensitive to that. The colour looks pretty much the same as

my other M lenses.

 

<p>

 

The contrast is very similar to the other lenses you mention. The

resolution at 28mm is lower than the 28 Elmarit, at 35mm its a bit

lower than the 35 Summicron, and at 50mm it's about the same as the

50 Summicron.

[jay_.]

Hood: Yes. But it costs $130 and does not come with the lens.

 

<p>

 

Polarizer: No the swing-out won't work. Leica makes an adaptor which

takes a 67mm polarizer and has vent holes so you can see the

polarization from behind the lens (eg through the viewfinder).

 

<p>

 

Color rendition: Optically the same as previous 3E, which I own, the

color rendition is on a par with most other current Leica lenses,

i.e. neutral to most people, cool to me.

 

<p>

 

Contrast at f/4 is similar to the lenses you mention when they are

also at their maximum apertures. Stopped down to f/4 those primes

have a bit higher contrast. Stopped down to f/5.6 or lower the 3E is

right up there with the best.

 

<p>

 

Filters: 49mm *thin*. Regular E49's vingette.

[budc]

Thanks guys, I think I'll stick to my primes.

[steve_barnett2]

I agree with Paul except to add that I find the resolution

indistinguishable from the primes when stopped down to f5.6 or f8

region. Other than being a two stops slower than a 'cron I don't

think you could tell the difference in results.

[jay_.]

The name of the game with the 3E is convenience. The difference in

optical quality between it and the prime lenses is a *lot less* than

between primes and zooms in general. The f/2 and f/1.4 primes are at

their absolute best by f/4 (2-3 stops down from open), whereas the 3E

is at its absolute best at f/5.6 (1 stop down) and this represents

only a tiny improvement from f/4. In addition the 3E keeps its

performance from 5.6 all the way down, whereas most of the fast

primes start to wimp out again from f/8. I would not be without my

3E, but also would not be without my 35/1.4ASPH. Two different tools

for two different uses. For most of my shooting, at f/5.6-f/16, the

convenience of the 3E is immeasurable and the performance is actually

better than the primes at all focal lengths.

[richard_hoag]

I have to agree with Jay. I have used the 3E since it was introduced

and have found it to be a wonderful alternative to the respective

primes. The lens is in its element when you are traveling light,

don't want your pockets full of lenses or a bag on your sholder

and/or are shooting an outdoor event where space is limited. You can

act fast, frame fast, shoot in available light and be assurred of

supurb contrast, sharpness and resolution; this is why you use an M.