Updates on the Tri-Elmar (3E) and 90TE…greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
While I was set up to test the 21’s and the 24, I decided to run a few other update tests as well. In the past there have been a few queries on the 3E, and most of the forum participants that own them just say they like them and leave it at that. Not very informative for potential new users. A while back I posted an "initial impressions" comment on the 3E, and a few of you mentioned you would like to hear my feelings about this lens over time. So, for those of you that might be interested in some comparative feedback on the 3E, and my impressions having used it now for a few months, here goes... (For curiosity’s sake, I also compared my latest 90TE to my 90SAA, and include those comments as well.) Same test-procedure disclaimers as always...3E test-target comparison results: This lens is at its best at 50mm/f5.6. At this setting, it performs just behind my current-version 50 ‘Lux in the center and corners, and I doubt anyone would notice the differences in the typical hand-held shot. At 50mm/f4, this lens performs about like my ‘Lux at f2, which is still pretty darn good. In the 35 setting, the lens performs almost identically to itself in the 50mm setting across the f-stop range. Contrast is also on par with that of my ‘Lux in both the 35mm and 50mm settings, but is slightly lower with the 28 setting. My 3E is at its worst at 28mm/f4, but I’m not talking a huge difference between this setting and the 50mm/f5.6 setting. I have no other 28 to compare it to, but at 28mm/f4 it performs a bit behind my aforementioned 24 at f2.8. However at this setting, the 3E shows some barrel distortion and also shows about one stop of fall-off in the extreme corners. At 28mm/f5.6 the barrel distortion is barely noticeable and the corner fall-off is not significant. At 28mm/f5.6 and above, the lens performs just slightly behind the 35mm and 50mm settings, but again, probably not of great significance for most hand-held situations.
3E in use: What can I say. I like this lens. Images made with this lens never seem to lack for technical reasons, even though it isn’t the sharpest lens in my bag. It has become an almost permanent fixture on my .58 body with the motor M attached. And it goes with me almost everywhere. I know I have other lenses that are sharper and faster, but none can match the 3E’s convenience when paired with the above body and motor. (I know both Jay and Paul, and probably others of you, leave their 3E’s on a Hexar, and I understand why. But for the life of me, I just cannot seem to fall in love with the Hexar body. For me, it just isn’t an M... In fact, I’ll probably sell the Hexar and get another .58x M – when I can afford the swap.) The ergonomics on the 3E were a bit confusing at first, having to stretch to reach the aperture ring, but field-time with the lens has cured most of that. Interestingly, one of the reasons I purchased the newer-version 3E was for the smaller, and ostensibly less intrusive E49 filter size compared to the earlier version’s E55 size. In use however, I find using a 49-55 step-up ring with my existing E55 filters poses no undue frame-infringement problems even at the 28mm setting, and for convenience I have even left the ring on by itself occasionally. The focus-tab is a welcome plus however, and I’m glad it’s there. Also, I do use the somewhat obscure DOF scales on occasion. Another curiosity for me is that I find myself using the 28mm setting fairly frequently. I didn’t think this would be the case, because I never really missed having a 28 in the past. However, I find when people are involved, I can do some of the work with the 28 that I used my 24 for in the past. Hmmm. Makes one wonder about the 28 Asph! (Or maybe even the new Voightlander...)
90TE: (For those unaware, I recently obtained a late-model German 90TE to replace an earlier Canadian version I regretted selling.) Another surprise. This lens performes incredibly well, even better than my previous version. At f2.8, this TE was slightly behind my 90SAA in the center, but notably softer in the corners. At f4 the TE is slightly behind in the corners, but almost equal to my SAA in the center(!) From f5.6 on, the TE maintains that performance, being almost as good a performer as my SAA other than in the area of contrast. Contrast with the SAA was much better than the TE at f2.8, and notably better at all other apertures. This is not to suggest that the TE has a big problem here, just that the SAA shows incredible contrast control across the entire f-stop range. IMO, the TE corner softness and lower overall contrast at f2.8 becomes a plus for portraiture, which is a purpose I regularly use the 90SAA for at f2.0 or f2.8. Given this result, and the size, weight and cost of my 90SAA, I expect the 90SAA will spend a lot less time in my bag from this point on. Time will tell :-)
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 22, 2001
Great reviews, Jack!Since you mentioned my affection for the Hexar/3E combo, I thought I'd update my body preference for this lens. It turns out to be identical to yours and Michael Reichmann's - the .58 with the new motor and the 3E is a remarkable combination. I've fallen out of love with the Hexar in the last couple of months, due to little niggling factors - the finder clarity, the body shape, the loading problems I've experienced, and then recently the rangefinder went out of adjustment. So the .58 M6 now has a firm grasp on my 3E. You still can't beat the gestalt of a Leica body.
As I indicated in my recent attempt at lens tests, I picked up the CV APO-Lanthar as a candidate for a travel 90 (to replace a German T-E that I stupidly traded off). While I like its size and handling, I must admit that every time I want to use a 90 I still reach for the SAA. I just know I can trust it to bring home the bacon every time - no excuses, no compromises. If weight is the price I have to pay for that, then so be it.
I agree with the usefulness of the 28mm setting on the 3E. Something to think about - I have the 28 Summicron, and I find I hardly ever use it. If I want a 28, the 3E is usually on the camera and I just turn the ring. If I want an available-light lens, the 35/1.4 gets the job. The 28/2.0 hasn't yet founds its niche in my shooting.
Thanks for the review - it was informative and authoritative as usual.
-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), August 22, 2001.
I just today retrieved my Midland 90 TE from the store where I traded it 2 months ago, and in the process ran more tests against my 90 EM (film to be processed tonight).Also, the salesman had in his camera bag the 90 and 28 Hexanon-Ms, on loan from a Konica rep, which, in addition to my 50 Hexanon-M (a long story) I tested against my 90s and a new 28 EM and 50 'cron AND a 50 DR 'cron (whewww!). Many posts to come in the next few days. I will try and link to sample pictures for the 90EM/90TE comparison since that is likely to raise a lot of eyebrows/red flags. I'll just give "Erwin" word pictures of the other comparisons unless something really outré shows up. let me know if there's something specific you want me to look for - I shot color and Pan F with all lenses.
Also, as mentioned in the 28mm Nikkor distortion thread, I got a chance to compare the 28 'cron and the 28 EM - I'll have some observations together soon on that experience as well.
Last weekend I ADDED a Hexar RF to my lineup - replacing another trade made in error. I think the HRF is MY version of the Tri-Elmar - something I use when I am willing to sacrifice a little quality for convenience, while staying within the rangefinder/Leica-M system.
TE's and pre-ASPH 35's rule!
...and thanks for the extensive report, Jack.
-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 22, 2001.
I prefer the Hexar RF to the M6 0.58 for 3 reasons: it has a 135 frameline; it has an electronic shutter accurate enough for consistent results on slide film; it loads and unloads quickly. As a travel camera it is just easier to work with than an M6. Before buying the Hexar I was set on a Contax G2, as I much prefer the viewfinder to that of the M, but economically it was better just to get a Hexar body and utilize all my Leica lenses, plus the bodies as backup.
-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 23, 2001.
Paul: Thanks for your input on the 28 - the last thing I need right now is any more Leica-rare-glass lust! Yes, the 90SAA is definately a bring-home-the-bacon lens - every time. It simply cannot be beat, but the TE is SOOO much smaller, and a darn good performer! Also, it is interesting to hear about your return to the M - as it was for many of the same reasons I could not fall in love with the Hexar.Andy: Congrats on retrieving your TE! I'll be interested in hearing all of your update reports on it and the 28. As for the Hexar, I will say I think it makes a decent third body - as a back-up. And yes, it does do some things the M cannot...
Jay: As usual, I agree with everything you are saying re the Hexar. But for some reason I cannot bring myself to trust it (reliability), and as a result I never reach for it when I need a camera.
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 23, 2001.
it has an electronic shutter accurate enough for consistent results on slide film;Eh? So how do all the slide shooters using M-Leicas manage, the poor things?
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.