Tri-Elmar ASPH Performance

[john_woo3]

Hihi may I know anyone has the experience with the Tri-Elmar ASPH

lens please?? Is this the newest version and how is this lens

compared with the old version and also other single focal length lens

please??

[chip l.]

I love mine! To my eye it is as sharp as the Summis that I have for the 35 and 50. The mechanics is all that changed between the two versions (mine is the latest). Most of the Anti-war pics in my portfolio here were shot with the Tri Elmar.

 

I use mine alot for when I know that I will want to shoot fast, and when I just feel lazy. Like the flexibility so much I wish Leica would continue the idea with a Tri Elmar Wide (21-24-28) - would be a perfect fit with their finder; and a Tri Elmar Tele (50-75-90 or 50-90-135)!

[vic_.]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/trielmar.html

[john_collier2]

Some people have complained about flare. And this is without filters. Using the accessory hood helps.

[atsushi_s]

I have used the optic and have been really satisfied.

The greatest defect of it is that it cannot get closer than

1m.

The image quality is superb, even if it doesn't come up with

lenses like 35 summilux ASPH.

The color is on the warmer side, but not too conspicuously.

 

--A Tokyo street-shooter

[richard_hoag]

I have owned both the original and current version. The mechanics of the first version are not as crisp as the current lens but optically they are both great performers. I purchased the second version primarily for the depth of field scale and it is and has been my most used lens since it was introduced. The only drawback is the f/4 max, I would love F/2.8; other than that the lens equals the respective primes everything being equal.

[carey_russ]

I have a first-generation one, it pretty much lives on the M6TTL except in extreme low-light conditions. Image quality is as good as any other lens I have, and the only time I've had any flare has been when shooting directly into the sun. Even then it's not too bad. Yes, the 35ASPH is better at F2, but the convenience of not having to change lenses is why I bought it.

 

I bought mine used, and also tried a new one. Interestingly, the detents for each focal length were better on the first-gen one that I ended up buying than the new one. Never any problem, and the recessed front element design is kind of like having a built-in hood. Filters go on the front, just like A36s on an old Elmar ;-)

 

The 2nd-generation 3E is a little smaller and so takes up less viewfinder area (Leica shooters learn to visualize anyway :) but its main advantage is that is has DOF markings, which make hyperfocal focusing easier. Optically both versions are the same.

[jay_.]

I also have the 2nd version, used to have the 1st version. It's my most-used Leica lens by far. I have never encountered flare, I always have a B+W MRC UV filter in place, along with the hood. I much prefer the ergonomics of the 1st version with a normal ring for focusing instead of the finger tab, and though the DOF scale on the 2nd version is a confusing rat's-maze it's better than nothing and that's the reason I switched.

[cabophoto]

Jay,

 

>> I much prefer the ergonomics of the 1st version

 

interesting. I have the first version, but I´d prefer the second becuase of the focusing tab.

 

Optically I think the lens is excellent; of course I´d love it to be f/2 but I realize that it´s not possible.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[jay_.]

I understand the reason for a tab on the physically short lenses that really don't have room for a wide enough focusing ring, but in general I detest them because they force me to adopt a hold that I personally find uncomfortable and therefore unsteady.

[michael_b._elmer]

I agree with Chip's idea of a Wide and a Tele Tri-Elmar, Tri-Elmarit, Tri-Summicron or Tri-Summilux.

[chip l.]

Jay,

 

I think the tab was done to answer some comments that with three rings it was confusing.

 

Chip

[albert knapp md]

I have been considering adding a TE to my menagerie but was

actually dissuaded by none other than... Ken Hansen. He told

me that a fair number of Tri-Elmars had been returned over the

last few years for repair of mechanical problems (usually

connecting the lens to the viewfinder screen size.) Any thoughts

from the panel?

[john_collier2]

More recent material from the LUG on the flare issue:

 

Dan writes:

 

-----

 

Sorry to rehash a subject, but I have been out of town for a few days and did not get a chance to respond during the discussion about the tri-elmar.

 

Yes indeed, the Tri Elmar does have a flare problem. In particular at the 50mm setting. I have a stack of slides that were trash because of the unpredictable nature of this lens at the 50mm setting.

 

What was baffling to me was that the flare occured in shots that would not normally be a problem for most modern lenses.

 

I found that hazy/bright days gave the tri elmar fits. The flare was identical to that seen in the shots posted earlier on this forum. The character of the flare made me believe that it has to do with reflections in the inner barrel of the lens, between element and camera, not between lens elements themselves. If you look into the back of the TE while pointing it at a light source you can see that a LOT of light reflects off the inner barrel in the 50mm setting. Little or none at the 28 or 35mm setting. I also noticed that the inner barrel is painted more of a flat grey than black, when compared to my other Leica or Contax lenses.

 

If this was an SLR lens you would be able to see the flare before taking the shot...and correct for the situation by reframing or changing magnification. Since you can not see THROUGH the lens you are left unaware until you get the ruined shots back.

 

It was this nasty traight along with a ton of distortion at 28mm that made me give up my TE. The fact that these issues have not been more of an issue with the LUG and especially with Erwin Puts has suprised me. How the TE is constantly refered to as one of Leicas "best" really has me stumped. Am I too picky? Are most users not seeing the problem in the snapshots they are getting back from walmart?

 

-----

 

And then replies to a query:

 

-----

 

Alastair, I did not use a hood, but in many of the shots I believe it really would not have mattered. In several cases I was shooting in a well shaded and relatively dark area. (At a temple in rural Japan on a cloudy day, shaded by heavy trees and a large gate.) There was no direct light shining on the camera at all. Only a distant cloundy background in a small portion of the center of the frame. In these shots the shadow detail was washed out with exactly the same flare you showed in your scans.

 

Indeed, if my very unscientific guess is correct about the cause of the flare, a hood will do nothing, since the cause is mechanical and internal, not optical. It's interesting to compare a lens like the Contax 90mm Sonnar G, with has really outstanding flare control, to the Tri-Elmar. The inner barrel of the Sonnar is jet black, with a velvet lining. NO light boucing around in there.

 

When printing in black and white I typically had to use 1 full contrast grade higher when the shot was taken in the 50mm setting. Only when the light was to my back, was the contrast close to the 28mm or 35mm settings.

 

By the way, to be fair, the 35mm setting was quite superb. Nearly as sharp as my Summicron and no distortion or flare. That said, it's a pretty expensive f 4.0 35mm lens.

 

At the 28mm setting I found the resolution to be lower, distortion very high and flare well controlled. Sorry, now I am starting to repeat myself.

[john_collier2]

And more comments on the Tri-E from the LUG:

 

William writes

 

-----

 

I did not have the flare problem when using mt TE. I think maybe I use 28mm

or 35mm mostly. I will try the 50mm more often to see what happen. BTW, I

always the the metal hood with TE. As to the 28mm, I compare TE with my

Elmarit28mm 3rd version. Yes, it is not as good as the Elmarit28 (3rd

version), and I can see the difference without much attention. But I can

accept the difference sice TE give much more convinience when working

outdoors. If you are looking for the best image quality, do not go for TE.

Stay at your fix focal lens.

 

-----

[ray_moth]

I have been using my Tri-Elmar lens (current version) for 18 months and no problems have developed through use. However, it is true that most Tri-Elmars have some difficulty engaging one or other of the framlines. In my case, it's the 28mm frameline that's tricky. If I turn the focal length selector quite sharply to the 28 setting, it's usually OK. However, I sometimes have to force it a bit, to make the 28mm frameline pop into place. The 35 and 50 settings are OK.

 

Optically, I find the lens to be very good, in terms of resolution and colour contrast. Leica admits that it has some distortion at 28mm but I haven't noticed this, probably because I haven't really taken any pictures that would show up barrel distortion.

 

I once detected flare, with the sun just outside the frame, but I don't own the (expensive) lens hood so that may have been the cause. The comments from the LUG about terrible flare at 50mm, even with the camera in the shade, do not accord with my experience and have not been mentioned by other Tri-Elmar users, including Erwin Puts. Could it be that the writer of those comments had a defective example of the Tri-Elmar?

 

My only real issue with this lens is its rather small maximum aperture of f/4. I find myself using it less and less, these days, because of that. It is also true that the minimum focusing distance of 1 metre can be a limitation but that doesn't often affect my photography.

 

I use the Tri-Elmar with a .58 M6TTL body, so as to be able to see the 28mm frameline while wearing my glasses. However, I don't like the lack of clarity of the RF patch in that body and I find my .72 M6TTL easier to focus, so maybe I should use the .72 and just take off my glasses for 28mm shots?

 

One useful thing you can do with the Tri-Elmar, with M6, M6TTL, MP or M7 in manual mode, is to take a exposure reading at, say, 50mm and then change to 35mm or 28mm for the shot. This can give you a more selective reading in cases where the surface reflecting the required level of light is quite small.

[john_collier2]

And on a more positive note from the LUG:

 

-----

 

Henning writes

 

-----

 

I have the 21, 35/1.4, T.E (1st) and 90 ASPH lenses. Although the TE produces more

flare than the other three, those 3 are, along with the Noct, the most flare resistant

lenses I have (among about 75 in various formats). All are significantly more flare

resistant than the lenses they replaced.

 

The 90 AA is by far the most flare resistant lens between 85 and 105mm that I have

ever used. It is truly amazing. My 35/1.4 exhibits very slight flare at times, but a tiny

fraction of the flare that all examples of the 50 Summicron, from the early collapsible

through the DR to the 80's 'M' version (I haven't used one newer than about 1990)

exhibit regularly.

 

The TE might not be the equal of these three, but it is also significantly better than

any Leica lens from the 50's or 60's or even 70's I have used, and even at 28, its

poorest focal length, it is better in all respects except distortion than the second

version of the 28/2.8, which is the last I used extensively. As regards distortion, the

TE at 28 is about the equal of the previous non-ASPH 21/2.8. Neither are the best in

class, but certainly nowhere near as bad as most prime SLR lenses, let alone

zooms.

 

I find this badmouthing of the TE's performance astounding, based on my admittedly

single sample. I've shot probably 120 rolls of 100ISO slide film through it, as well as

about 25 rolls of B&W.

 

I should note that some individual lenses from Leitz have been shown to have

elevated flare levels due to improper edge blackening, which Leitz has repaired.

 

On the bokeh issue; part of what produces 'good' bokeh is the remaining uncorrected

spherical aberration. Unfortunately, part of what causes the soft corners in lenses

such as the 4th generation 35/2 is the remaining uncorrected spherical aberration. At

present levels of lens design, we can't have it both ways.