bene
Established
I have the VC 35f1.2 and 50f1.1 . I plan to get my first leica lens this year. I find the Tri-Elmar attractive. As my low light needs are met. and I rather get a zeiss than a cron. I know that it is known to be "soft" but I think it pretty much good enough and I want to try out the "leica look" . and the versality is great.
Would like to know any users first hand experience.
Feel like a good combination with my current line up.
Would like to know any users first hand experience.
Feel like a good combination with my current line up.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
bene
Established
Convenience of changing between 3 focal lengths quickly
bene
Established
Hmmm alrighty might just stick to what I have for now
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The Tri Elmar is one of those corporate "Oh, isen't this a good idea" - that was scrambled in the design! It is an ergonomic disaster. The focal length selector is right where the focus ring should be. It is slow - I could live with a 28f4, possibly with a 35f4 - but a 50f4!!!!. The 1 st version had a rather mediocre performance at 28mm and f4. OK with 35/50 at f4.
The version II was much improved - even @f4 the 28 is nice and sharp. However, it is a rather clumsy lens to use - it is big and, as stated" you keep switching focal lengths rather than focus.
Today, you can get dedicated focal length lenses with better performance for much less money from Zeiss and VC - and faster too.
The 28/35/50 also had some problems with switching frame-lines. The 1 st version in particular was a bit iffy in this respect. The mechanism is complex and often needed to be adjusted to engage the frame line selector of the camera.
I had a couple of them, a version I and a version II - but in the end I got rid of them as the convinience of a Tri-focal wasn't enough to overcome the shortcomings of the lens.
The version II was much improved - even @f4 the 28 is nice and sharp. However, it is a rather clumsy lens to use - it is big and, as stated" you keep switching focal lengths rather than focus.
Today, you can get dedicated focal length lenses with better performance for much less money from Zeiss and VC - and faster too.
The 28/35/50 also had some problems with switching frame-lines. The 1 st version in particular was a bit iffy in this respect. The mechanism is complex and often needed to be adjusted to engage the frame line selector of the camera.
I had a couple of them, a version I and a version II - but in the end I got rid of them as the convinience of a Tri-focal wasn't enough to overcome the shortcomings of the lens.
akarin
Established
Do the same comments also apply to the lens's wider sibling? I'm fascinated by that one and was aiming to try it out one day. Right now, I'm content with the CV 15mm screw-mount
furcafe
Veteran
I have the 2nd version, & I'll be partly contrarian & say that the Tri-Elmar may be a good companion for your primes, particularly as a daylight travel lens.
It's big compared to most Leica-compatible primes, but not really so much w/regards to your Noktons. The fact that it has a focus tab keeps me from attempting to focus w/the selector ring. The main drawbacks for me are the slow speed & high price. The 1st could be addressed by keeping a fast prime(s) handy for low light shooting, & the 2nd is your concern only.
It's big compared to most Leica-compatible primes, but not really so much w/regards to your Noktons. The fact that it has a focus tab keeps me from attempting to focus w/the selector ring. The main drawbacks for me are the slow speed & high price. The 1st could be addressed by keeping a fast prime(s) handy for low light shooting, & the 2nd is your concern only.
Gid
Well-known
Get the Tri-Elmar for convenience if you generally shoot in good light. I tested my version 2 against my Summicron 50, Hexanon 50 and Nokton 50 (see link below). Whilst sharp enough, its a much lower contrast lens. In terms of size, its probably similar to a 90 2.8 Elmarit M IIRC. I liked mine and didn't have problem with FL selection or focusing.
http://strachan.zenfolio.com/p741443616
http://strachan.zenfolio.com/p741443616
Fujitsu
Well-known
Why not just buy a 28mm lens?
john_s
Well-known
I have one of the later ones, and have no problem with frame line changes. It's sharp enough for me (400 speed film, hand holding). It is not at all sloppy.
The point of the lens is to avoid frequent lens changing. It depends, of course, on the light level whether you will want an f2 or f1.4 lens some of the time. Which leads to lens changing.
I like the feel of an M6 with small lenses, so I often travel with a 50/2 and a 25/2.8. Both give the camera a different feel to the Tri-Elmar, which I often leave at home.
I will be keeping my Tri-E for some travel photography.
The point of the lens is to avoid frequent lens changing. It depends, of course, on the light level whether you will want an f2 or f1.4 lens some of the time. Which leads to lens changing.
I like the feel of an M6 with small lenses, so I often travel with a 50/2 and a 25/2.8. Both give the camera a different feel to the Tri-Elmar, which I often leave at home.
I will be keeping my Tri-E for some travel photography.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Get the Konica equivalent, the M-Hexanon Dual 21-35/3.4-4.0. None of the Leica trouble, better built and faster.
Currently for sale on eBay, item nr. 270503772731
Currently for sale on eBay, item nr. 270503772731
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't see any practical usefulness for such a lens.
As an alternative, consider a small wide angle lens, a sharp and fast normal lens, and maybe a short tele.
24-35-50 or 21-35-50 or 21-50-90.
As an alternative, consider a small wide angle lens, a sharp and fast normal lens, and maybe a short tele.
24-35-50 or 21-35-50 or 21-50-90.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I had one - it is HUGE and I kept forgetting to reset the selector and ended up with a lot of what I thought was 35 being 21!! A friend has it now and he likes it on the M8. Optical performance is very good.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
It was not a "belief" statement - it was based several 100 rolls with these lenses. I suspect that if the M8 had been around and I had one - the Tri Elmar 28/35/50 would make sense. I used it on the M6/M4P's and did not like how it felt.
The WATE 16/18/21 is a better kit - though I find that the 2 mm and 3 mm focal length difference is not that big. It is also staggeringly expensive as you can by a used M6, a 15f4.5 Heliar, a ZM Distagon 18f4 and a VC 21/4 - or even a ZM Biogon 21f4.5 and have money left over - and you would not see any significant difference in image quality.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
I've had a version two and thought it was excellent for out door. But I need fast lenses too and therefore it didn't make sense for me to keep it.
In your case I'd buy a VC 28/2 or 28/1.9
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
In your case I'd buy a VC 28/2 or 28/1.9
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you want a slow but astonishingly sharp lens (not in my experience 'sloppy' and certainly not 'awful'), yes, it's pretty good.
Cheers,
R
Cheers,
R
Ken Shipman
Well-known
I had the version II for a few years. I tried to like it, but the finicky selector and a propensity to flare, even with the hood and no filter, discouraged me in the long run. I stopped using it, so I sold it. Don't miss it at all.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
My comment was not directed against you, but against that "wrong, wrong, wrong" comment without any explanatory statement...
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have had one since 2001. A nice daytime travel lens. After not many rolls the aperature ring got loose and lost it's click stops. It was fixed under warranty and now is loose and clickless again. When Leitz calls a lens "mechanically complex" it scares me a little. It's a little fiddly to get the proper frame lines up. All that said, it makes lovely images if the light is good and you don't mind the bulk. Joe
paulhart
Established
Prices of decent copies seem to have hit the roof since production ended.