I'm wondering if anyone knows if the new tri-Elmar is different than the current model in terms of lens quality, sharpness, color etc. I've heard that aside from barrel cosmetics and weight, it's the same lens formulation.

Thanks for your comments!

--David

-- David (dwellers@mac.com), March 06, 2001

Answers

It is indeed the same optical design just a different mount. Filter size went from E55 to E49.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 06, 2001.

I read about this at the Lieca site last might. The new 3E is a few millimeters shorter and uses at 46mm filter rather than a 55mm filter. These are because the new 3E does not have the buiilt-in hood. So, the new 3E does not obstruct the viewfinder as much. The detent stops when changing focal lengths have been "improved". The focus ring has a focusing tab like the wide angle Leica lenses. I guess the old 3E could be a little confusing to use with the aperture, focal length, and focusing rings so similar and so close together. Leica also says there are numerous "mechanical improvements".

Optics are identical between the two versions.

Tamarkin has the new old 3E's now for $1600 (good price) and the new 3E's cost about $2000.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 07, 2001.

The new lens also has a set of depth of field marks. These are laid out in a stair step pattern to cover the difference from one focal length to to next. It might not be as visually clear as a single focal length's DOF markings, but it is better than none at all. You can now set those zones for grab shots, or set hyperfocal distance for deep landscape type shots.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 07, 2001.

If you go here:

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m6ttl/pdf/index_ e.html

You can download a PDF of the brochure on the latest Tri-Elmar. The filter size is E49, not that it matters much. I wish it was E46 as then I could use the new polarizing filter adapter on my other lenses. It does not look that hard to make though.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 07, 2001.

As was pointed out, the new Tri-Elmar has been slimmed down to E49 at the front, this being no magic but the result of lopping off the mount extension that previously served as a sort of lens shade. So while the new lens does not obstruct the viewfinder as much, if you then attach the clip-on hood (at extra-cost, not-included item!)it actually obstructs more of the finder than the old version. Also, while it takes E49 threaded filters, it is necessary to use a "thin" mount filter because otherwise it will vignette at the 28mm setting. There is also a 3-focal-length DOF scale on the new version, which if you're good at picture puzzles and mazes, you might actually be able to decipher. The detents for the focal lengths are indeed stronger, but the mechanism for changing the viewfinder frames is still the same hit-or-miss as on the old lens. Of all the changes, only the focusing tab is, for those who *like* tabs, an actual improvement. From handling the two lenses, the new version (optically identical) is a case of one step forward and two steps back. My advice to anyone who wants a Tri-Elmar is to snatch up the older version while they're being closed out. They weren't made in big numbers, so once the NOS runs out they're bound to get on the collectors' lists sooner or later and the prices will probably go back up.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 07, 2001.

Sorry about the confusion. I was wrong about the 46mm filter. The correct filter size is E49.

I agree, that for for $1595, the old 3E looks like a relative bargain right now. If you're wanting one, suggest you give Tamerkin a call.

Although others have fairly critisized the new 3E DOF markings, when I look at them they seem reasonably understandable. And, I like to use DOF pre-focusing rather often, so to me, the DOF markings on the new 3E would be a strong argument in favor of that version.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 07, 2001.

If only it was faster....sigh

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 07, 2001.

John, having handled equivalent-ish zooms for SLRs (like a 35- 70/2.8), all I can say is , I'll gladly use faster film and live with f:4.0. One of the glories of this lens is how much it gives you for so little weight. Provia 400F to the rescue!

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 07, 2001.

Thanks for all the great responses and info. I've got an opportunity to buy a chrome 3E. Anyone heard if the new version will come in a chrome version as well? If it doesn't, that would make this one a real buy!

Thanks again.

-- David (dwellers@mac.com), March 08, 2001.

The pictures won't tell you diddly about the quality of the lens, but anyone interested in seeing some photos taken with a Hexar RF and a current 3E can look at:

http://members.home.net/chefurka/Belize/Belize.html

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), April 13, 2001.

I took a new, discounted, old model 3E for a spin and encountered serious "28mm - banana" when framing doorways for architectural shots (say 1/10mm wide on long side of a vertical print. This clearly evident problem seemed to fade with longer shots but I had already returned the lens unscathed and am not going to take many more chances with a "you mark it you've bought it" new/old 3E lens. - anyone care to comment? BTW, I don't really need a perfect 28 as I have a Contarex 21 Biogon with leica "m" mount, but quality+convenience is the principal reason for the 3E. (...consistent banana soon finds a new home) Thanks for comments,

bert

-- bert mcclure (fuzbat@tiscalinet.fr), June 28, 2001.