wda Posted September 27, 2006 Share #1 Posted September 27, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Protecting the Leica 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar-M lens when lens hood reversed I usually carry the special lens hood specially designed for the 28-35-50 TE loose. However it can be reverse fitted to the lens for carriage. But that leaves the lens front element unprotected which is why I don’t fit it in that way. Is it possible to get an internal clipping 49mmm lens cap? Or is it simpler to use the standard front lens cap and carry the hood separately? What practice do other users of this lens/hood combination adopt to protect the lens when travelling? David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Hi wda, Take a look here Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 Lens cap question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wizard Posted September 28, 2006 Share #2 Posted September 28, 2006 Is it possible to get an internal clipping 49mmm lens cap? My Tri-Elmar had the internal clipping 49mmm lens cap supplied with it, in addition to the push-on type lens cap, exactly for the purpose you have mentioned. Since I mostly use my Tri-Elmar fitted with a B+W slim filter, which has no front thread and therefore does not accept the snap-in lens cap, I have so far only used the regular push-on cap, and I put on the lens hood when needed. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted September 28, 2006 Andy, thank you. Interesting. I am sure my version 2 lens came only with the push on hood. Actually I find it no hardship to fit the hood when needed although I will look out for an internal screw cap. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted September 29, 2006 Share #4 Posted September 29, 2006 David, I believe I found the additional snap-in lens cap at the bottom of the leather pouch the lens came in. Have a look, maybe yours is still resting there. Actually, all Leica lenses having a separate lens hood are supplied with two different lens caps, 2.8/24asph, 2/28asph, 2/35asph and 4/90 spring to my mind. Regards, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted September 30, 2006 Thank you Andy. I have checked and no luck. My TE came without the lens hood which I bought later. The lens only seemed to have front and rear caps, the front one being a 'push-on' type. I will check the box in case I overlooked it. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted September 30, 2006 Share #6 Posted September 30, 2006 My series 2 3E only had the push on front cap, when I bought it new about 3-4 years ago. I never bothered buying the lens hood as Erwin Puts said at the time that it wasn't needed in normal use. Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 30, 2006 Share #7 Posted September 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the second version of the Tri-Elmar new and it only came with the push on cap. I bought the lens hood as I found the Tri-Elamr to be the most flare prone Leica lens I have bought, but that didn't come with a clip on lens cap either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 1, 2006 Author Share #8 Posted October 1, 2006 Well it seems I am not alone. Although Leica say an equivalent lens hood is built into the TE, which is true to a degree, I am much happier since I bought a mint secondhand lens hood. It is another deterrent to stray finger tips reaching the front lens surface and it certainly helps to control flare. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 1, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 1, 2006 The Tri-Elmar has what appears to be some mechanical problems - the aperture ring looses its clicks, others have the same problem and mine has been back to Solms several times - and it's flare prone. Part of me wishes I''d never bought the lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 2, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 2, 2006 I have read about flare problems with the Tri-Elmar, too (a hot spot occuring in the center of the picture in particular at the 50mm setting etc.), but mine never had this kind of problem. I may get very slight internal reflections when the sun is near the edge of the frame, but then I always use the lens with a UV-filter mounted and, moreover, I consider this behaviour normal, almost every lens I own produces reflections to a certain extent under these adverse conditons. The very front part of the lens barrel became loose once, I had the small screws retightened, and since never had any problems. After I had bought the lens, I was not quite satisfied with the sharpness of the results it delivered. Turned out the focus plane of the lens was slightly out of adjustment. Correctly adjusted, the lens now produces outstanding results and is one of my favourite Leica lenses. Given the initial problems I and others had, it does seem that this lens is mechanically very complex and thus a little more prone to develop some kind of misbehaviour. When up to spec though, it is a marvel. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #11 Posted October 2, 2006 Steve, I am sorry you have had these problems which you have reported earlier. I am really surprised Solms have not been able to fix it for you. Surely their repairs are guaranteed. Andy, I share you views although not your experiences of flare. It is a complex lens, but a superb achievement: three quality prime lenses in one barrel! Although initially I shared the workload with other lenses, I now have full confidence in this lens for travel purposes. During a recent week in Spain it was my main lens and was used 90% of the time. My 21 came second, and 90 third. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 3, 2006 David, yes I have mentioned the problems before. The problem is that I don't use the lens a great deal so the time between failures has been greater than I would expect a repair warrenty to cover. I have to say that when the lens is working fine it is excellent. F4 is sometimes a bit of a limitation, but within that limitation - and provided flare isn't an issue - it performs as well as any lens I have, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted October 3, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 3, 2006 Some Leica lenses have construction qualities that would be supurb for an armoured vehicle, the tri-m is not among them. The moment I bought it, I noticed it was a far less rugged lens than my other Leica lenses. This lens needs to be taken care of even more than the others. Sofar it didn't let me down construction-wise. On flare however, it is prone to it, not often but when it is, well see the attached image. 35 or 50, can't remember, with uv filter and hood. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6131-tri-elmar-m-28-35-50-lens-cap-question/?do=findComment&comment=63305'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 3, 2006 I think the problem with the lens is the complexity of the design. If you've ever seen one of those versions of the lens with a section cut out you'll know what I mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted October 3, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 3, 2006 Just wondering. Then why do some zoom lenses work so well. A lot of these equal the tri-m's complexity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 3, 2006 I think it's because everything has to fit into such a small package. All the tolerences are very, very tight. The cut-away model really illustrates just how complicated it is and how little free space there is inside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #17 Posted October 3, 2006 frc Thank you for your illustration of flare. You cannot deny it is there; however you were shooting against a comparatively bright light source, more or less straight into the lens. It would have interesting to see a comparison shot taken with a non-TE lens. Because of the separation between the front of the front lens element and the filter, I have avoided using a filter on this lens. Perhaps that is part of the problem. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted October 3, 2006 Share #18 Posted October 3, 2006 Hi David, A filter worstens things, you're right. I use the tri-e without now, although the lens is still prone to flare it is better without. I'm posting a few more pics, these are made with the lux 35 asph, this workhorse hardly ever gives problems. The only thing that occasionally happens with a uv filter on it is a tendency to produce ghost images. The lady reading is with uv filter, the others are without. All pics taken without hood. Actually this thread is supposed to be dedicated to lens caps. BTW these are the best remedy against all flare and ghost image problems ;-) cheers Fr. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6131-tri-elmar-m-28-35-50-lens-cap-question/?do=findComment&comment=63772'>More sharing options...
wda Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share #19 Posted October 4, 2006 frc, Interesting thoughts and I think we are agreed on the fliter/flare problem. In extremis, all lenses are tested when the brightest illuminating source, be it sun or artificial, aims into the lens. Coating does help, but it is difficult to eliminate entirely. Thanks for showing your examples. They certainly make your point. David PS I am about to post a picture I took this afternoon called 'Cloud Symphony' in the Landscape Forum. For this picture I was pointing the camera almost directly towards the sun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.