G01
Member
Hi
I was wondering it was worthwhile buying a tri-elmar (28, 35 and 50-f4) as opposed to a f2 50mm if one has a limited supply of$. I have heard that the tri although great as it has all 3 most commonly used fls, doesn't perform as well @ 35 or 50 when compared to the single lens.
Please advice
thanks
G
I was wondering it was worthwhile buying a tri-elmar (28, 35 and 50-f4) as opposed to a f2 50mm if one has a limited supply of$. I have heard that the tri although great as it has all 3 most commonly used fls, doesn't perform as well @ 35 or 50 when compared to the single lens.
Please advice
thanks
G
HelenB
Established
Hi G,
For me, the biggest drawback of the Tri-Elmar (3E) is the aperture. The performance is only marginally inferior to the Summicron primes. I find it very convenient when there's enough light and I'm doing a job that requires different focal lengths (for my personal work I choose a particular focal length and working aperture and stick with it for that series - the 50 mm is my usual choice).
However, as with the choice of camera, it is a very personal thing. If I only had one lens, there is no doubt that I would have a fast prime rather than the 3E. A lot of it is down to your personal requirements.
Best,
Helen
For me, the biggest drawback of the Tri-Elmar (3E) is the aperture. The performance is only marginally inferior to the Summicron primes. I find it very convenient when there's enough light and I'm doing a job that requires different focal lengths (for my personal work I choose a particular focal length and working aperture and stick with it for that series - the 50 mm is my usual choice).
However, as with the choice of camera, it is a very personal thing. If I only had one lens, there is no doubt that I would have a fast prime rather than the 3E. A lot of it is down to your personal requirements.
Best,
Helen
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
You posted the same question in the Leica forum, right? No problem, I'll respond here.
I never considered the Tri-Elmar. The fun of shooting rangefinders is in the fast lenses most use (and in this context, even a f2.5 is fast next to the most popular zoom, which can easily be a f3.5/4, or worse yet, f4/5.6). A lens like this, to me, defeats the purpose of the rangefinder, or at least the reason I like them, by forcing me to use slower shutterspeeds before I want to, or faster than usual film.
What's the minimum aperture of the Konica reply to the Tri-Elmar?
In any event, the best thing to do is have a couple of bodies with different primes. But then, that's me. In sum, the premise in your question (that this lens doesn't perform as well as its prime counterparts) remains to be seen, but one can tell it's not everyone's favorite.
I never considered the Tri-Elmar. The fun of shooting rangefinders is in the fast lenses most use (and in this context, even a f2.5 is fast next to the most popular zoom, which can easily be a f3.5/4, or worse yet, f4/5.6). A lens like this, to me, defeats the purpose of the rangefinder, or at least the reason I like them, by forcing me to use slower shutterspeeds before I want to, or faster than usual film.
What's the minimum aperture of the Konica reply to the Tri-Elmar?
In any event, the best thing to do is have a couple of bodies with different primes. But then, that's me. In sum, the premise in your question (that this lens doesn't perform as well as its prime counterparts) remains to be seen, but one can tell it's not everyone's favorite.
pvdhaar
Peter
Don't fret over which one performs best. They're both able to make excellent pictures, that most of us couldn't tell apart if they were taken at the same focal length.
Instead of distilling from the internet whether one has marginally higher MTF figures than the other, you should at least have had them in your hands, and preferably still, have had them on the camera that you intend to use them with.
The question to ask though, is which one works nicest, balances best, and obscures the viewfinder the least. That would be the one that you would always pick if you had both, and that should be the one you select when you can only have one.
Instead of distilling from the internet whether one has marginally higher MTF figures than the other, you should at least have had them in your hands, and preferably still, have had them on the camera that you intend to use them with.
The question to ask though, is which one works nicest, balances best, and obscures the viewfinder the least. That would be the one that you would always pick if you had both, and that should be the one you select when you can only have one.