Tri Elmar question?

[Chuck A]

Leicaphiles,

What are the differences between the old and new version of this lens? Those of you that have one, do you use it and like it?

 

[Ben Z]

I really wanted to get a Tri-Elmar and borrowed both versions at one time or another. Version 2 was definitely nicer to me (filter size down to 49mm from 55mm, frameline actuator worked precisely with all bodies I tried, unlike the 1st version, there's a complicated but usable d.o.f. scale for all 3 focal lengths, and a finger tab for the focus). What I disliked intensely about both lenses was the amount of intrusion into the viewfinder at 35mm as well as 28mm. The kind of shots I do, I don't like having to play blind man's bluff with a big chunk of the frame. My suggestion re the Tri-Elmar is try before you buy. The one thing I didn't find very problematic, which some people harp on, is the f/4 maximum aperture.

 

[fycheung]

I have Trielmar 2nd version. I love to travel with it. May be due to I shift from SLR with zoom to range finder. The images are not as sharp as 50mm Summicron but still very good.

I agree Ben Z's comment of lens front protuding into view finder, but not big matter for me. I use it outdoor mainly or I will use with flaseh.

 

[Tim]

I have the 2nd model. Ben has nicely summarised the differences between the two, it's not a lot but it does add up to better useability in the 2nd version.
I love this lens; while it is a bit bulky by Leica standards it's really not too bad. It's my standard hiking kit.
Big things that people complain about are bulk, blocking the finder, and slow. Only you can decide whether any of these factors are significant.
Unlike fycheung, I don't notice any lack of sharpness with the Tri. In fact it's as good (down to f4, of course....) as any Leica lens of the same focal length. And it has the added bonus of stopping down to f22, occasionally useful in landscape photogrpahy.

Erwin Puts has tested the Tri, here's the link: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/trielmar.html

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yes, it's a Tri-Elmar question.

 

[Hektor]

Worth a bump-up

 

[Chuck A]

I was just curious about why there were 2 versions of the lens. Thanks for the info. The problem of blocking the viewfinder is what bothers me the most. I have used lenses that did tis before and it gets annoying.

 

[dmchadderton]

The problem of blocking the viewfinder is what bothers me the most. I have used lenses that did tis before and it gets annoying.

This is only 'really' a problem at the 28mm length. It does encroach the vf frame at 35mm, but not much, and 50mm is ok. The benefits (for me) far outweigh the negatives, it's a great lens with any film and excels when travelling. I guess that it is a near ideal companion to the 75/2 and the 2 would be dreamy companions during summer.

 

[Ben Z]

I strongly suggest a try-before-you-buy. For my taste both versions (the second one used with the shade, vented though it is) blocked an excessive part of the 35mm frame. I felt that way about the 35 Summilux-ASPH with it's cut-out hood too, and the Summicron with the rectangular plastic shade. My 35 Cron has the vented shade and that's mildly annoying but tolerable to me. Everyone has a different level of sensitivity to different things.

 

[Chuck A]

Thanks for the info. I am not seriously looking at the moment but it does look like an interesting lens.