I've been thinking of buying a Tri-Elmar (the original version), but I'm concerned that the lens will intrude too much into the 28 and 35 framlines. Anyone had experience with this?

-- Peter Latner (peterlatner@yahoo.com), March 09, 2001

Answers

My new version (with no hood) protrudes into the frame lines pretty significantly at 28 and 35. At 35mm it's about like using the 35 Summilux ASPH if you left the cap on - except for image quality, of course ;-) It doesn't bother me particularly, but I can see that it might drive some people crazy.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 09, 2001.

It depends on which body you are using. On an M4-P or M6-M6TTL 0.72 it (1st version) intrudes into about the lower right 1/3 of the 28 frame and 1/4 of the 35. It gets worse the closer you focus, as the auto-parallax control moves the frames down and right. At the minimum distance, the Tri-Elmar intrudes into the 50mm frame! If I use mine on the M6, I always use the accessory 28mm finder, so that's a non-issue, and in the 35mm frame the Tri-Elmar isn't really any more intrusive than my 35/2 ASPH hood. However, lately my Tri-Elmar has found more or less a permanent berth on board a Konica Hexar RF, with the 0.6 finder, the intrusion is somewhat less and in fact doesn't bother me at all. It would be a similar situation with the M6TTL 0.58.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 09, 2001.

My original Tri-Elmar blocks about 15% of the 28mm frameline on a .72 M6. I don't find this objectionable. YMMV.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), March 09, 2001.

I just compared my current Tri-Elmar (without hood) with my fixed focal length lenses. At 28mm it blocks less of the frame than my 28 with a hood, but more than the 28 without a hood. At 35mm again it blocks less of the frame than my 35 Summilux with hood, but more than the lens without its hood. At 50mm it blocks the same amount as my 50 Summicron with the hood (it's the second-last version with a removable hood) but if I take off the hood the Summicron doesn't block the frame at all.

There are two other things worth mentioning here:

1. All my fixed FL hood have cutouts that ease the situation a bit.

2. The amount of the *image frame* that is obscureded for the focal length under consideration does not vary from one magnification VF to another (i.e. it's the same for both the .58 and the .85). What does vary is the amount of visible area *outside* the frame lines that is blocked. This is because the finder itself has a wider field of view, but the angle of coverage of the frame lines within that wider view is constant (that's why they appear smaller in a lower-mag finder). So the amount of the *image area* that is blocked by the 3E remain sconstant on all Leicas, even though the apparent blockage of the viewfinder changes.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), March 09, 2001.

I have the origanal tri-elmar and I love it. It has become my favorite lens. The lens does intrude into the 28 frame but I ignore it and when I need to see that part of the frame I turn the camera upside down. I wear glasses so I have to put up with squinting to see the whole 28 frame but that does not bother me.

-- jon harkness (harkness@wt.net), March 21, 2001.

Received my new model 3E today and read the following from the Tri Elmar’s instruction book:

Lens Hood “In order to keep the lens as compact as it is and in order to ensure that the view finder image be obstructed as little as possible, a lens hood was integrated directly into the lens. The longer the focal length that is used, the further the front lens lies back inside the front mount. This guarantees that for all focal lengths the lens’s path of rays is not interrupted while at the same time protecting the front lens from stray light. An additional lens hood can be attached when using filters, it is available as accessory (order no. 12592).”

This is referring to something completely different than the sliding built in lens hood design of the original 3E. The last sentence of the above makes it sound like the accessory lens hood is needed only when using filters. Of course, the proof of that will be in the pictures. If true, this would mean that the new model 3E doesn’t protrude into the frame lines much more, if any more, than the single focus length lenses it replaces. So far I am really pleased with the Hexar RF and 3E combo. Can’t wait to give it a good workout this weekend.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), March 23, 2001.

Bob,are speaking of the late version, the one that has the focusing tab and the DOF scales? Thanks.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 24, 2001.

Dan, Yes, the current (newest) version with the focusing tab and scales (11625). The instruction book actually mentions two accessory hoods: 12592 - to be used with filters, and 12450 - the standard hood. You can see the front lens element move in and out while changing from 28 to 50mm, although, the difference is only about a 1/4 of an inch. The Nikkor 55 micro has a recessed front element and is well known to not need a hood. The 3E is so small and compact that I hate to add one if its not needed. Hopefully, the integrated hood design will do its job.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), March 24, 2001.

Now I’m beginning to think that Leica just kept the same instruction book from the original 3E and used it for the new version. The product information for the original 3E (11890) found on the Leica website, has the exact same paragraph quoted above from the new 3E's (11625) instruction book. Well, now I am confused and have probably confused everyone else, too. The fact that the hood is an extra cost accessory for the new 3E, seemed to confirm that Leica believed the lens did not need a hood. Bottom line, do your own tests and make your decision to use a hood or not based on the results. Sorry for any confusion.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), March 24, 2001.