I just took delivery on the new motor M and a new version Tri-Elmar, so I thought I’d share my first impressions, and would like to hear other's comments as well. (I also acquired a pre-asph 21mm Elmarit, but I’m pretty sure none of you have any interest in hearing about it!)

Motor M: I like it! A lot. It took a little while – about one roll of film – to get used to “floating” with the finger-bump as others have phrased it, but then the darn thing just felt “at home” on the camera. It is not too heavy, and is pretty quiet too. On the 1.5 fps setting, the motor seems a bit quieter than the shutter click, but certainly lasts longer; and at 3 fps, the motor seems the same volume or a tad louder than the click. On the downside, it took a bit longer for me to load film, as I had to change my grip to make room for the motor’s handle when attaching it, but I’m adjusting. The only other problem is it feels so good on the camera I know I’m going to want one for the other body... dammit!

Tri-Elmar: Okay, it is pretty small and light and it IS really convenient to have those three focal lengths that handy. AND I found myself using the 28 setting more than a little. This last fact struck me as odd, ‘cause historically I have not preferred the 28mm focal length. Oh well, life is full of little surprises, and time will tell (Let’s just hope I don’t feel the need to try out the 28 asph!) Another oddity is that in general, I like Leica’s focus tabs, but on this lens my verdict is still out. It feels strange, and this lens seems like it might have been better off without it - curious. Again, maybe a bit more time will tell. One last curiosity is why the Leica engineers designed this lens to “zoom” from 28 up to 50 then back down to 35... I found myself looking at the zoom-ring instead of the framelines to see which focal length I’d chosen - Why, I don’t know, but hopefully I’ll adjust after some more time with the lens. I do like the smaller front end, which still intrudes somewhat into the finder on my .58x body at 28mm, but must be better than its wider predecessor in this regard (although I have never used one, so I don’t really know). As for performance, my early images appear very crisp and sharp at all focal lengths, but this was only a casual shoot and not a test. Another small plus is the extra stop at the high end of f22 – a convenient, although not ultra-sharp feature, especially if you find yourself shooting in bright sun with 400 speed film. (All my other Leica lenses quit at f16.) I can definitely see why so many of you like this lens on a Hexar (or even an M6) as your point-and-shoot replacement – a little less convenience in exchange for a quantum leap gain in quality! Net, net, it seems like a keeper, but I’ll have to play around with it a bit longer before I make my “final decision” on this piece of glass ;-)

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 08, 2001

Answers

Jack: the reason for the out-of-sequence zoom progression is the progression of cam length (long-medium-short)of the M's frameline selection mechanism. To go from 28-35-50 would have required a much more complicated solution to coupling the focal length selection to the frameline selector cam.

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

I also just recently plopped a new Tri-Elmar on a Hexar, Jack, and I'm having a blast. I find the focusing tab a help both because my "prime" equivalents have the tab, and it helps me from getting confused between the focusing ring and the focal length selector ring.

I haven't done any careful comparisons between the lens and the "primes", but results so far are sharper than I expected, and it certainly is handy in those situations that I chose the Hexar for - fast changing candid situations.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), June 09, 2001.

Hi Jack!

>> I also acquired a pre-asph 21mm Elmarit, but I’m pretty sure none of you have any interest in hearing about it! >> Well, I do have interest, as I myself do have one, and the main reason I mention this is to hear what you say about your feelings and comparisons with the new ASPH (since 1997). Like to hear from you.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 09, 2001.

Hi,

Good luck with your new equipment! Interesting, I am thinking of going in the same direction (Tri-Elmar) after reading Jay's excellent posts on the subject. It seems to make sense, but I am debating it in my mind . After my last trip I have decided to take an SLR along with one M6 on future long trips. It seems that there were too many missed opportunities in the 100mm to 300 mm range. The Contax N1 will supplement my rangefinder when the need arises and I am looking to cut down (if possible) on bulk when traveling.

When you bought the Tri-Elmar did you check out the older model in terms of feel and ergonomics? What made you choose the newer model of the Tri-Elmar? Thanks.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), June 10, 2001.

Jay: I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense if the Leica engineers used a helical and follower to bring up the proper frameline -- It seems to me that it would have been just as easy from an engineering standpoint to use a ring-cam and follower arrangement, where the ring-cam can be as easily ground short-long-medium as it can short-medium-long, and there would likely be no difference in cost.

Ken: Oh no... I can feel a Hexar hunt comeing on!!!

Mike: A 21 discussion sounds like a subject for another post -- You wanna start it, or do you want me to?

Eddie: I tried out the older Tri-Elmar in a store several months back -- At the time I remeber thinking it seemed pretty large physically, I had some trouble focussing it, I did not like the not-so-positive engagement of the FL detents, and I do use DOF scales with some frequency which it lacked. So, I thought the new version with the focus tab, more positive FL detents, DOF markings and smaller filter size would just be the cat's meow. Now I'm not so sure -- I like the new improvements, but I could have saved several hundred dollars on the exact same optical formula by buying the older unit, and I am not yet sold on the focus tab arrangement on this version...

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

I agree that on some trips the 100-300mm range is nice to have. I normally carry a 135 M lens, and the 2x Komura extender. Mine doesn't have a finder and the rangefinder coupling is messed up (why I got it for $75)so I pre-focus with the lens and then pop on the 2x. I use it with the 135 Apo-Telyt, stopped down a couple f stops the results are still quite good and I use the rangefinder patch as a frame. So that gives me 135 and 270mm. If I *really* needed serious coverage in that range I'd just carry the R system. Carrying both the M and R together isn't something I'd do. I'd still want backups for both, and that would get into some serious weight.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 10, 2001.

Hi,

Jack: I am awaiting your assessment,over time, with the new Tri-Elmar which is quite informative and helpful. I value your opinion. From everything I have read, the Tri-Elmar optics are stellar. I am going up to NYC on Tuesday and will check everything out at Ken Hansen and B & H while in the Big Apple that week.

Jay: Thanks for your insight. For me, the Contax N1 SLR will supplement my M6 system when I take a long trip. The M6 is so reliable that I believe that it is unnecessary to take a second body as a back-up as I have done in the past. I enjoy low light photogrpahy with the Leica M. I normally shoot Fuji Reala 100 ASA or their 400 and do not blow up many shots larger than 8 X 10. So a Tri-Elmar (with one other lens) might make sense with a 70mm-300 Zeiss lens on the Contax N1. Weight and bulk of the equipment are considerations on my 50 plus year old back.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), June 11, 2001.

Jack,

I have the old version Tri-Elmar, and I find it awkward to focus, since when my fingers reach for the focus ring, they get the "zoom" ring. I bought the lens used, and I suspect it was dropped or something, since the focus ring is stiff, and the index and infinity marks won't line up exactly, but it produces such fantastic photos I don't want to risk having it disassembled and readjusted.

Yes, the front element is somewhat intrusive, but no worse in practice than the 28/2.8 or the 21 pre-ASPH, even with their cut-out lens hoods. It bothered me for the first couple of rolls, but now I hardly notice it.

-- Mike Smith (mikesmithpix@aol.com), June 12, 2001.

The Tri-Elmar really intrigues me. Please keep us posted about your results with it.

I have an M6(0.58) and 50mm 'cron, plus a Contax Aria kit with 28, 35, 45, 50, 85, 135 (and a tokina 100-300/4). My wife has an N65 Nikon with 50/1.8 & 28-105AF lenses. Plus, I recently got a Nikon Coolpix 880 (3.3 MPixel). Hang on, I'm going somewhere here.

The CoolPix has really impressed me and I think it is going to become my Internet and family snap-shot camera. It is just so darn convenient, etc.

But what about 'serious' photography. I am thinking about ditching the Contax wide lenses (28-50) and one of the Aria's, and ditching the 'crom 50, then going with a Tri-Emar and a 35mm 'lux. That gives me wide angle with the M, great convenience, and low light with the 'lux. I'd keep the 85 and longer Contax lenses (at least until I get a 90 Elmar ;-)and ditch the Nikon film stuff. I am nuts? I guess this has become a question within a question. Anyone else thinking like this, thanks for any thoughts.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 12, 2001.

Dan,

No you're not nuts. Or if you are, then so am I. I bought a cheap digital camera on sale and used it to take pictures of my manual focus Nikon equipment. Then used the digital pics to help sell the Nikon stuff on ebay. Now I use Canon EOS for 100mm and up. The long IS lenses are simply amazing. My Leica lenses consists of the new model 3E, 35 asph 'lux, and 90 SAA. To me it is the best of both worlds.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), June 12, 2001.

Eddie: Thanks for the kind words -- I'll share my follow-on impressions after I've had more time with the 3E.

Mike: Thanks for your input on the older version. The tab is feeling a little better, but I'm still a long way from being "at home" with it.

Dan: The wife now uses a P&S or the digital... I use a Coolpix the same way you and Bob do, and much like Bob, I will be triming my Nikon equipment to the bare minimum -- One AF body, the 80-400 VR lens (very sweet!) and possibly keep the 24-85 just in case, but I don't really know why I'd bother, because with the M, I only use the Nikon when I need a long lens... The 3E on an M6 (or possibly a Hexar in the near future), while still serious gear, has become my P&S and is almost always with me... Your concept of the 3E/35 'lux combo would be tough to beat for a very compact multi-use system... So no, I don't think you're nuts at all!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 12, 2001.

Dan

My experience, for what it is worth, is that if you do narrow it down to two systems you virtually always want some duplicates. For example on your SLR you will want much the same coverage as your M otherwise you are condemned to carry both systems about with you, which personally, I find a pain although a 3E plus M6 is not so bad to carry with the Contax. Then you find you have two systems with duplicate lenses and you begin to wonder why you bother with two systems anyway - why not just have one? This is why I am resisting a full blown M kit myself and stick with an R - I hate carrying too much but like the longer lenses on the R and also, as a glasses wearer, dislike too much r/f usage on an M system all day. Too much crunching of glasses to see out to the edge of the frame. Just my thoughts - most other people on this site seem to have multiple systems and don't mind, but I perhaps have an overly "clean" mind and dislike too many choices.

Mind you, I am not really living by my rules as I also have a CL with 40 and 90mm for occasional use...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 13, 2001.

Thank you for your comments, it seems we all go through these thought processes from time to time. The CoolPix has caused it for me this time.

It seems that we all have a bit of the photographers sentiment that we want to be ready for anything. This inevitably leads to a big bag full of many pounds (or kilos) of gear. Once the bag becomes too burdensome (either literally or financially), we start to think of paring down and switching around.

All this makes me respect photographers like HCB, Eise', David Alan Harvey and others that did and do excellent work with minimal gear.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 13, 2001.