Krosya
Konicaze
Hello again,
Another question - how good are Tri-Elmars for M Leica? Is it a worth-while lens too have? How does it's optical quality compare to fixed lenses? Photos and feedback would be great.
Thanks.
Another question - how good are Tri-Elmars for M Leica? Is it a worth-while lens too have? How does it's optical quality compare to fixed lenses? Photos and feedback would be great.
Thanks.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I've owned and used both. The older version mostly but I sold it and replaced it with the smaller 2nd version that has a DOF scale on it.
Most of the photos on my street photography galleries were taken with the 1st version.
IMHO, it is the only indispensable lens ever made for the Leica M.
Most of the photos on my street photography galleries were taken with the 1st version.
IMHO, it is the only indispensable lens ever made for the Leica M.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
I had a first version for a while, and it produced good results, but it was so bl**dy heavy! (which was why I sold it). Sorry, can't post any shots, but it does do well, withing the limit that max aperture is f4.
I would like to try the new version as it is a little smaller.
I would like to try the new version as it is a little smaller.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have the second version. I would not say it is too heavy. It feels no heavier than say, the 50mm DR Summicron. It does however require a period of adjustment, so you and your Tri-Elmar might have to have a few visits with a counselor. Here's why.
It won't feel like a real Leica lens for a while. It's too long to feel like a 50; and way, way too long and big for a 35. And at the 28mm setting, it is not only too long, but protrudes much too much into the finder frame. I use a 28mm auxiliary finder with it, and suggest you do the same.
You can't slip it into your Domke F5XB (or other small bag) using the slender compartment space that leaves enough room for 2 or 3 other lenses. You have to adjust the compartment divider so the camera and lens can take up half the bag.
The TE is light enough so the camera can hang from the strap without sagging forward, if you wish; then again heavy enough so you can wear it with the lens pointing down, if you tip it that way. Keeps the sun off the shutter curtain, a point in its favor.
Version II has a DOF scale, useful if you have the time to sort out which of the many wiggly lines applies to your situation. Not much good for shooting fast, but fine for subjects that don't move. At least it has a scale; how many zooms for SLR's have one?
Optically I have yet to be disappointed with it at any focal length/aperture.
Safety: If you don't have to change lenses, then you won't drop a lens on the concrete--possibly making this one of the cheapest lenses around, in the long haul. It is my standard dog-walking lens (86 lb German Shepherd) for this reason. I am protected against sudden canine lunges by not having to change lenses.
Fewer missed shots: no time lost changing lenses. Happier wife, on hikes, for same reason.
I sold my first TE, on account of not liking the extra length & unLeica-like feel. I got a Noctilux instead. After a year of thinking it over, I dumped the Nocti and got another Tri-Elmar. The virtues outweigh the faults. All in all, consider this a recommendation.
Best,
Rob
It won't feel like a real Leica lens for a while. It's too long to feel like a 50; and way, way too long and big for a 35. And at the 28mm setting, it is not only too long, but protrudes much too much into the finder frame. I use a 28mm auxiliary finder with it, and suggest you do the same.
You can't slip it into your Domke F5XB (or other small bag) using the slender compartment space that leaves enough room for 2 or 3 other lenses. You have to adjust the compartment divider so the camera and lens can take up half the bag.
The TE is light enough so the camera can hang from the strap without sagging forward, if you wish; then again heavy enough so you can wear it with the lens pointing down, if you tip it that way. Keeps the sun off the shutter curtain, a point in its favor.
Version II has a DOF scale, useful if you have the time to sort out which of the many wiggly lines applies to your situation. Not much good for shooting fast, but fine for subjects that don't move. At least it has a scale; how many zooms for SLR's have one?
Optically I have yet to be disappointed with it at any focal length/aperture.
Safety: If you don't have to change lenses, then you won't drop a lens on the concrete--possibly making this one of the cheapest lenses around, in the long haul. It is my standard dog-walking lens (86 lb German Shepherd) for this reason. I am protected against sudden canine lunges by not having to change lenses.
Fewer missed shots: no time lost changing lenses. Happier wife, on hikes, for same reason.
I sold my first TE, on account of not liking the extra length & unLeica-like feel. I got a Noctilux instead. After a year of thinking it over, I dumped the Nocti and got another Tri-Elmar. The virtues outweigh the faults. All in all, consider this a recommendation.
Best,
Rob
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you everyone for your comments. I'm considering this lens, but still need to do more research. Plus it seem that to find it used is a problem. And new - well, I wish I could afford that.
So far good impression of this lens. Keep'em coming.
Thanks again.
Thank you
Thank you everyone for your comments. I'm considering this lens, but still need to do more research. Plus it seem that to find it used is a problem. And new - well, I wish I could afford that.
So far good impression of this lens. Keep'em coming.
Thanks again.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>It won't feel like a real Leica lens for a while.
Sorry but to me this a bogus. Many us use many non-Leica lenses and happily. Don't let this sway you. What is a "real" Leica supposed to feel like anyway?
I paid ~$1600 for the 2nd version TE on eBay. I've found that there is little price difference between the two versions.
If you get the 2nd version, get the lens shade too. Makes the handling of the lens just right -- but forget it for the 1st version.
Sorry but to me this a bogus. Many us use many non-Leica lenses and happily. Don't let this sway you. What is a "real" Leica supposed to feel like anyway?
I paid ~$1600 for the 2nd version TE on eBay. I've found that there is little price difference between the two versions.
If you get the 2nd version, get the lens shade too. Makes the handling of the lens just right -- but forget it for the 1st version.
boilerdoc2
Well-known
It is an awesome lens. Ist or 2nd version. Sharp as a tack. See Erwin Putts review. Does alot of the things you need. Little slow but my favorite lens.
Steve
Steve
kinoglass
Established
Had mine (IIversion) for over 5 years. It is the lens I take on trips to Europe together with a M6. I have used in many difficult conditions and the lens is a winner. No flare, even when the sun shines on it! According the optical freeks only the 28mm focal lenght is slightly inferior to the last 28 Elmarit 2.8
I, just a simple photographer can't tell the diference, my eye sight was just resolving 22 lp/mm at 40 cm last time I check.
I, just a simple photographer can't tell the diference, my eye sight was just resolving 22 lp/mm at 40 cm last time I check.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
AusDLK said:
Why Dave? the 24 mm hood is just fine on version 1.
One caveat, the frameline switching can be a little sticky on the first version.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
AusDLK said:>It won't feel like a real Leica lens for a while.
Sorry but to me this a bogus. Many us use many non-Leica lenses and happily. Don't let this sway you. What is a "real" Leica supposed to feel like anyway?
1. I said, "For a while." And I said why I thought so.
2. A "real" (read classic) Leica 35mm is very compact. I thought I made that clear. :bang: The Tri-Elmar is long, about like a 90 Tele-Elmarit. When you start to shoot with it, it feels like a long-focus lens, which sets an expectation to see a 90mm frameline in the finder. (To make matters worse, the 28mm frameline is paired with the 90!) So there is a split second of reminding oneself, "this is a wide-angle, not a 90, even though it feels like a 90." It's a bit like shooting with a zoom on an SLR, the kind that gets longer as the focal length gets shorter. The word "counterintuitive" applies.
The lens is well worth using, but it goes against the grain of years of fine-tuned man-machine relatedness for a rangefinder user. That is what I meant when I said a period of adjustment is required. Is that clearer?
How about if a say it doesn't feel like a real rangefinder lens. Better?
Bunk, eh?You have a way with words, sir.
sleepyhead
Well-known
I have the first version, and I picked it mostly because I don't need the DOF scales and I like not needing a hood for the lens. I haven't had any mechanical problems with the lens. I bought it second hand on Ebay for 700 pounds.
I use it mainly with a Konica Hexar RF that I bought a few months ago, and the two are a fantastic combo because I found that my little brain couldn't handle manual metering, and focusing, and selecting aperture, and choosing a focal length. So the AE of the Hexar just frees me up abit to concentrate on the view I'm after.
I have lots of RF equipment, but IF I had to narrow it all down to the minimum, it would be: M4-P + Hexar + Tri-Elmar + 35mm Summilux
Oh yeah, the performance. It seems as sharp as anything I've used. I shoot mostly fast films so the grain ends up limiting the resolving power. I find the bokeh very very smooth (thinking of the 50mm setting here). The f/4 max aperture isn't really a limitation with fast film. I personally don't find the 28-50-35 progression of focal length changing confusing. I use it perhaps 60% of the time at 35mm, 30% at 50mm, 10% at 28mm - so my experience with 28mm is limited.
The protrusion into the viewfinder is something that will either drive you crazy, or you'll get used it and not really notice it after a while. I think that the brain has a way of filling in the blocked out areas if you don't fight it too much - if you know what I mean.
Attached are two images, the first ("catch the train") was at 50mm with 1/4 second exposure at f/11. The second is at 35mm at f/4, and more to illustrate the bokeh (see tree branches in background), and a 100% crop to show that the finer fibers of the cap would be visible if not for the grain (Neopan 1600).
I use it mainly with a Konica Hexar RF that I bought a few months ago, and the two are a fantastic combo because I found that my little brain couldn't handle manual metering, and focusing, and selecting aperture, and choosing a focal length. So the AE of the Hexar just frees me up abit to concentrate on the view I'm after.
I have lots of RF equipment, but IF I had to narrow it all down to the minimum, it would be: M4-P + Hexar + Tri-Elmar + 35mm Summilux
Oh yeah, the performance. It seems as sharp as anything I've used. I shoot mostly fast films so the grain ends up limiting the resolving power. I find the bokeh very very smooth (thinking of the 50mm setting here). The f/4 max aperture isn't really a limitation with fast film. I personally don't find the 28-50-35 progression of focal length changing confusing. I use it perhaps 60% of the time at 35mm, 30% at 50mm, 10% at 28mm - so my experience with 28mm is limited.
The protrusion into the viewfinder is something that will either drive you crazy, or you'll get used it and not really notice it after a while. I think that the brain has a way of filling in the blocked out areas if you don't fight it too much - if you know what I mean.
Attached are two images, the first ("catch the train") was at 50mm with 1/4 second exposure at f/11. The second is at 35mm at f/4, and more to illustrate the bokeh (see tree branches in background), and a 100% crop to show that the finer fibers of the cap would be visible if not for the grain (Neopan 1600).
Attachments
sleepyhead
Well-known
I'd just like to add to my initial posting that when i first started using the Tri-Elmar I was (pleasantly) surprised that the "signature" appeared, to my eyes anyway, to be less like the current Leica lenses (despite the "ASPH"), and more like the "classic" lenses of the past. I do not find the Tri-Elmar to be overly contrasty, for example. The second picture above of the child and pile of fire wood could easily have been taken with a 35mm pre-ASPH summicron or the 35mm Summaron. It's something with the way the middle graytones are rendered, perhaps.
Has anyone else experienced this with the Tri-Elmar?
Has anyone else experienced this with the Tri-Elmar?