I am considering the purchase of the new Tri-Elmar, and am interested how users of this lens feel it compares to their fixed focal length lenses. What lenses have you compared it to, and how does it compare in real-world use as far as sharpness and contrast? What are its "pros" and "cons"? I'd also be interested in knowing if your comments refer to the first version or second version of this lens. Also, before everybody points me to Erwin Puts' review, please be advised that I've already read it! I'm looking for additional real-world user views... Thanks in advance for your comments!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 10, 2001

Answers

I took a look at one when they first came out, but I do an awful lot of shooting with my Leica at f2.0 and f2.8. It would seem to be quite a handicap to be limited to f4.0 as maximum aperture with a Leica-it would just about kill any low light shooting capability. Too bad they couldn't have come up with a f2.8 design-I guess it would have been too huge.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 10, 2001.

Jack,

I had a 1st generation Tri-Elmar and traded it in on a 75 Summilux. The lens doesn't vignette at all (no suprise given F4 maximum aperture) at 28 mm but the picture quality suffers at 28 vs 50 mm. I also thought that the focus was not a smooth as on the fixed focal length lenses like my 75 or 35. Sharpness and contrast compare favorably with the fixed focal lengths and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Summicron and the 50 setting on the Tri-Elmar unless you habitually shoot on a heavy tripod with VERY slow film. But the real bitch with the lens is speed. You have to give up 2 stops of latitude to carry this lens around. But hey!! the new version allows you to use the swing-out polarizer with 3 focal lengths and this is a bonus!!!

Depends on your priorities. If I were travelling with only 1 lens it would be the Tri-Elmar. But the point is I don't travel with just 1 lens....

Cheers,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 10, 2001.

First, the new version does *not* allow use of the swing-out polarizer! You must use a special adaptor and a 67mm screw-in polarizer. The adaptor has cutouts so you can see what the polarizer is doing from behind the lens, i.e. through the finder. Anyone can make such an adaptor for use with other M lenses, BTW, if they're handy with a Dreml drill. But to the main point: the Tri-Elmar does exactly what it was intended to do superbly, which is to be a daytime (or flash) travelers' lens. It is a great lens for daylight-hour walkabout photography. My Tri-Elmar lives happily on my Hexar RF. I made a polarizer adaptor as above, with a 55-67 step-up ring. Along with the Tri, I carry a 15mm Heliar and a "skinny" 90 Tele-Elmarit using the Leica double rear cap, an M6 body, and an Olympus S20 flash (clone of the Leica minilux CF flash, but only cost $50), all in the zippered pockets of one or another Orvis travel vest. No bag. The M6 is loaded with high-speed film, which I prefer to high-speed lenses because I need DOF for my type of photography. I do take along an older 35/2 which gets mounted on the M6 after dark. Only when I am going hiking for landscapes that I will enlarge to over 11x14 do I carry the 21 ASPH or 28 Elmarit, 35/2 ASPH, 90 Elmarit-M or 135 APO-Telyt. Those are fabulous lenses but make for an oppressively heavy outfit for walking around a city all day long. Neither the old or new Tri-Elmar is perfect at calling up the framelines, and it varies from body to body, but a little snick of the preselector lever rectifies any misalignment. Yes, the new version is E49, but 1)you need special thin filters to avoid vignetting @ 28mm and 2)you need a clip-on hood (cost extra!)which obscures more of the viewfinder than the old Tri-Elmar which has a built-in hood. Yes, the new Tri-Elmar has DOF scales but you need a lot of time and/or training in heiroglyphics to decipher them. I converted an old pocket sliderule to a 28-35-50 DOF calculator and on rare occasions have used it. Another way is to rangefinder your closest distance *in meters*, move the lens to double that distance, then divide that distance into 30 (28mm) 50 (35mm) or 100 (50mm) and the result will be the aperture you need to get your subject and on to infinity in focus. Unless you are a focus-tab addict, I'd go for a first-version Tri-Elmar while they're being closed out at bargains.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

I have what must be an older Tri-Elmar (E55). I love it. You will be really hard pressed to tell any difference between it and the best of the fixed focal length lenses, even aspherics. Yes, there is a difference in steril lens test settings but in practice, I can't see it. I thought I was the only one having problems with the frame lines. 28 and 50mm work fine but 35 requires two tries most of the time. Can anyone tell me what's the difference between old and new Tri-Elmars?

-- Mark A. (mramra@qwest.net), February 11, 2001.

I'll never give up my Summicrons, but the first version Tri-Elmar is great for versatility. I like to carry mine along with the 90mm Elmarit, or with the 15mm Heliar mounted on a IIIf. I use it in daylight, and also frequently at 28mm in low light on a tripod.

For handheld work, you'll never see a practical performance difference with the fixed lenses.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), February 11, 2001.