Tri-Elmar at f/4.0?

[Ken Ford]

I'm considering looking for a used second model Tri-Elmar for travel, and maybe even for use as a walking-around lens. I tend to shoot mostly f/2.8 to f/5.6 whenever possible so I don't think the f/4.0 aperture would bother me.

I'd probably be shooting it wide open a substantial amount of the time. How are these at f/4? I've been reading conflicting comments on the web - some people say they're in the same league as a prime, others say they're soft, and some say there is a difference depending on the focal length.

 

[Dan States]

At 35 and 50mm they are great no matter the aperture. At 28 you need to stop down and you never get rid of the distortion, which drove me nuts.

I found flare to be a problem at the 50mm setting, so get a hood if you go with the Tri Elmar. Don't buy it unless you can return it if you don't like the 28mm performance.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[CJS]

Tri Elmar @ 4

Tri Elmar @ 4

I have the tri-elmar and it is my most used lens when I travel. It performs excellently at f4. I use it primarily at 35 and 50, not because of the distortion but because I just use 35 and 50 the most. I agree, there is some barrel distortion at 28, but it was never something that drove me too crazy. I do not have a hood, and never thought I needed one because the glass is recessed so far back that it seemed redundant. The only time I had a flare issue was shooting indirectly into the sun.

I think Erwin Puts says the tri-elmar at 35 and 50 is as good as the current leica primes and better than the old ones, and I would have to concur. It certainly suits my needs. I shoot primarily tri-x with it.

One of the 12 finalists in the recent RFF contest was taken by the Tri-Elmar set at 50. It is of the guy in leather passed out on the ground with the two women in leopard skin skirts walking in front of him. I think it's still in the upper left hand corner of the RFF home page. If I had had a 35 prime on my camera I don't see how I could've gotten the shot. The girls would've been spooked and gone behind me. The tri-elmar is extremely useful and I believe has given me shots I otherwise couldn't have captured. If you can live with f4, it's a great lens.

Cheers,

Craig

 

[Jon Graham]

I agree with CJS. The lens is excellent and much under rated. I also used it mostly at 35 and 50; though the 28 never really bothered me. Unfortunately I sold it a few years ago when I decided to "go digital". My God was that a stupid decision. I have bought back most of my gear except for the Tri-Elmar. When the M8 arrives, this will be one hard to find lens.

Don't worry about the f4 performance, it is excellent.

 

[jaapv]

According to Erwin Puts it is as good as the equivalent pre-asph lenses. Barrel distortion? If you scan and print it is the easiest fix in Photoshop, and with most subjects not noticeable anyway. I never had any problems with flare, and I don't use a lenshood on the lens, it protrudes into the viewfinder. I feel a number -though not all- of these flare complaints are due to the use of a UV filter on the lens. On this lens the filterthread is right at the front of the built-in lens hood-the worst imaginable place for it to be regarding flare.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Palaeoboy]

According to Erwin Puts it is as good as the equivalent pre-asph lenses.

He definately doesnt say that for all focal lengths. In his style of writing that doesnt highlight defficiencies in modern Leica lenses he slips in that at 28mm the last 2 Elmarit 28s are superior. But when you stop at think about this small comment you realise that at 28mm its only as good as their previous 28's of the 1970's. User comments like Dans are alot stronger that this lens is quite weak at 28mm. Given that this would be a focal length I would want to use most with this lens it was a choice that I decided to pass on.

 

[jaapv]

He definately doesnt say that for all focal lengths. In his style of writing that doesnt highlight defficiencies in modern Leica lenses he slips in that at 28mm the last 2 Elmarit 28s are superior. But when you stop at think about this small comment you realise that at 28mm its only as good as their previous 28's of the 1970's. User comments like Dans are alot stronger that this lens is quite weak at 28mm. Given that this would be a focal length I would want to use most with this lens it was a choice that I decided to pass on.

Where did you read that? These are literal quotes from his article:

Second surprise: its performance is in many picture taking situations equal to the current Leica lenses of 28,35 and 50 type. There are obvious and visible differences between the 3E and its current fixed focal length lenses, however. To appreciate the importance of these differences I would like to draw a distinction between two types of Leica M users. The Heavy Duty user who demands and needs the highest optical performance and has the expertise to extract the full performance potential out of the Leica lenses. And the Normal user who is quite critical in the performance area, but whose picture taking style is a somewhat less demanding.

And:

Is the 3E a replacement for three topclass focal length lenses. The answer is obviously not easy. Its full aperture of f/4,0 has its limitations. especially when using low speed films. It design parameters define as a worthy alternative in a compact body for 3 popular focal lengths and here it performs outstandingly well. The smooth and quick changing of focal length brings many picture taking opportunities that are lost when you have to change several lenses . And the critical Leica user can use these new possiblities in the secure knowledge that the resulting pictures will show all the qualities Leica lenses are famous for nowadays. And she may even smile broadly at all users,even the most critical, who are using the older generations of Leica lenses in the 28 to 50 class. He is using a 330 grams convenient optical system with excellent performance the older lenses simply can not match. The modern and current generations are able but hard pressed to surpass this level of performance at f/4,0 and smaller. The Leica user who needs outstanding performance at apertures wider than f/4,0 and/or big enlargements showing the smallest image detail with great clarity and contrast needs to change lenses and wear out her bayonet flange.

 

[Palaeoboy]

Erwin wrote"How excellent is the performance. Not every person will like the conclusion, but the 3E is clearly superior in all optical parameters to many Leica lenses of the 28, 35 and 50 focal lengths. With the exception of the mentioned 5 lenses (28 current and 3rd generation, 35 ASPH and immediate predecessor: (the 7 element Summicron) and the current Summicron 50) the 3E will outclass any other Leica lens of the 28, 35 and 50 focal length of previous generations by a large margin."

Jaapv he states this at the beginning before the quotes you have stated that there are 5 lenses that are ahead of the Tri-Elmar. As I stated the negitives of a particular Leica lens in Erwins reports are always 'Understated' but one of the five lenses he mentions is the 3rd Generation Elmarit that came out late 70's/80's.

You are also interpreting too much into his comments about replacements. He says "in many picture taking situations" (meaning some but not all) they are equivalent to the current lenses but thats refering to stopped down where most would use the lens in general sunny conditions not extreme conditions where the 5 noted lenses would be superior. That can also be said of many older Leica lenses compared to the current ones. Again in your second quote you forget the 5 lens exemption he clearly lays out at the beginning of the article. He neglets to highlight that the 3rd version Elmarit is several generations back which, as my point was originally, puts the Tri-Elmars 28mm prefromance back several generations of 28mm lenses to the 70's.

The review was also written prior to the Summicron 28mm as well so the tri-elmar is not able to match not only the 3rd and 4th version Elmarits but then 28mm Summicron on top of that. That puts the Tri-Elmars 28mm perfomance 4 generations back. Sorry but that does qualify as the this lens main defficiency.

 

[jaapv]

Far be it from me to be an apologist for Erwin Puts; I disagree with him far too often. Still, I think you are missing the essence of his article. It is not about a lens contest. It decribes the Tri-Elmar as an unique lens with qualities the are, maybe not the same, but on the same level as any Leica lens. You are right that some new designs surpass older ones in contrast and sharpness - I would like to point out that that clinical character does not appeal to everybody and a number of users actually prefer the older lenses. The real strength of the Tri-Elmar is the ability to make true Leica-like photo's with surprising speed and ergonomy. ( and yes- the handling could be improved- a lot) And that makes it one of the most desirable Leica lenses for certain kinds of shooting.

 

[Ken Ford]

Interesting discussion, guys.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[jaapv]

Well said, Leica_Magus (btw, please disclose your first name, I like talking with you, but just your handle is so impersonal...), but he can be controversial, especially as he appears to be the mouthpiece of the Leica factory from time to time. But if that gives him acces to factory information, it is maybe a good thing. Anyhow it is a pity he doesn't update his website any more.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Palaeoboy]

"Far be it from me to be an apologist for Erwin Puts; I disagree with him far too often. Still, I think you are missing the essence of his article. It is not about a lens contest."

Its certainly not my intent to say that Ewins writings are not useful but rather in this instance just encourage some that you have to dig a bit deeper in his writings for the negatives of certain leica lenses that arent often highlighted but generally expressed as a subtle comment. This isnt unique to Erwin, it happens with many enthusiastic about the subject they are writing about.

Jaapv, you did ask me where I read that to which you added his quote "Second surprise: its performance is in many picture taking situations equal to the current Leica lenses of 28,35 and 50 type", and also originally said "According to Erwin Puts it is as good as the equivalent pre-asph lenses" to which I showed where that isnt to be taken literally and where he does state otherwise with certain lenses that are exempt.

As far as missing the essence of the article I dont know how you can derive that as no one has discussed or said the lens not to be a competant alrounder for which it certainly is and a marvel for what it achieves. I feel that you yourself missed the essence of some of the things he said like his reference to "general picture taking situations" and missing the 5 (now six) lenses that are expempt. Myself and other users were bascally pointing out the lens' weak point which is the 28mm setting which many find unacceptable. Again thats not to say the lens bad by any means. Most multi focal lenses have a weak focal length, with the Tri-Elmar its just its 28mm in comparison with its other focal lengths.

 

[jaapv]

Well, Paleoboy, I think the implication in your last post is exactly what I am trying to say: the comparison is apples and pears, a prime 28- or 35 -or 50 is something totally different from a multiple focus lens. That means that it is pretty irrelevant whether the 28 asph is "better" (a term I am rather allergic to regarding lenses). So it seems, despite appearances, that we agree: horses for courses. Go on holiday: take the Tri-Elmar and come home with great shots, photograph the Sydney Opera House by night: take the 28 asph and a tripod and reveal what the eye cannot see.....
I pulled this one from my gallery; It is not impossible to get a nice result with the Tri-Elmar @ 28.

 

[Mark Norton]

I have a first generation one; as I understand it, the second generation has a slimmer body so it intrudes less, DoF markings and a more positive click stop for the focal lengths. Is that it? Are there any other reasons to trade the old one in and buy new? I certainly find mine very useful, especially on my R-D1.

 

[jaapv]

The optics are supposed to be identical.

 

[Steve L]

Second generation is slimmer, but more prone to flare without the built-in lens hood that the first gen has...so if you add a lens hood, you are probably worse off with the second gen....

And you should all read the Tri-Elmar review at reidreviews.com - this is a subscription site but there is a lot of useful stuff on it, by Sean Reid. You can see some of his reviews on Luminouslandscape.com, from before he went subscription on his own site - look at the R-D1 lens reviews (fast lenses and wide lenses)