Trying out the new tri-elmar on the M8

[osera]

Here are some with the new 16-18-21 tri-elmar at 16mm, iso 320, M8. No IR filter (special filter holder needed). I used the "old" 21,24,28 finder - works pretty well, as long as you don't mind finders. Lens detection enabled. Lens is coded, of course.

Third shot was looking for degree of vignetting.

FWIW, the serial number is the first one I've seen over 4000000. (OK, I know, like who cares... )

[Eoin]

Just for your information I saw SH Photo have the filter holder listed on the website.
Leica - M Lens Filterholder for*4/16-18-21mm ASPH. Tri-Elmar 14473 with EU warranty - SH photo

[c6gowin]

Thank you for posting these photos. Vignetting and distortion appear to be very well controlled in your photos. This lens is on the short list for my next lens purchase. I didn't realize this lens was available yet. I look forward to more sample photos.

[guy_mancuso]

Allen i am flying over. LOL
Congrats this looks very nice, MORE please.

[ChrisC]

Allen - Which f stop? Tripod? Handheld? Care to comment on file quality? I'm sure many people on the forum would be interested to hear more.

......................Chris

[osera]

Hey y'all, thanks for the comments. The lens has just come available here, I think, I was on a "list." Decided not to get the new (fangled) finder for now. FYI, I'm told that the new finder is $400 if you get it with the lens, and around $725 if you get it separately.

These were all at f/8, hand held. I managed to include my shadow in number 2.

I'm still looking at the image quality. The lack of vignetting is very impressive to me. I think that the sharpness is really good, and very even to my eye all the way into the corners. I'm not sure if the sharpness is quite as excellent as the Leica 21, I'd have to do some direct comparisons. I've processed these images in C1, and I think they're liking the sharpening turned up just a bit compared to the primes. Not sure about that yet, though.

I saw some flare, but much less than I expected, even nearly into the sun. Some streaking on my camera, of course, since it is an original without hardware fix yet, although I did update to 1.09. I think there's some green to the left of the sun reflection in the third image below.

Here's another few, mostly to show the well controlled vignetting. Tomorrow I'll try some with and without lens recognition. And maybe I'll clean my sensor, too. LOL

[lej47 (Larry)]

Allen,
These shots look great. Did you compensate for the bright sand? The setting looks familiar to me. I'm wintering in Panama City Beach, Florida. Are these taken along the Florida Panhandle ? I've been walking the beach, here, with my Digilux 2, waiting for a while to get an M8.
Larry

[osera]

Larry- Good call on the location! These are from Rosemary Beach, FL, just in the next county to the west from PC. Sure was a nice day today, huh? And yes, I usually compensate for our white sand on a sunny day, either in the camera (1 stop) or in RAW conversion, or both.

[lej47 (Larry)]

Allen,
If you are going to be on the coast for a while, or down here again, maybe we could hook up and talk cameras? I've been known to have a cold one or two at "Shades". I'll be here all winter. Let me know.
Larry

[marknorton]

These pictures look much better than the odd distortion seen in the Puts review which were taken with an M7. Might be the cropping factor is working to our favour here. Great shots!

[stevenrk]

Thank you for the shots. Could you tell us if the lens and lens hood blocks part of the RF right bottom corner field of vision at any of its 3 settings, and if so, by how much. Thanks again

[scott kirkpatrick]

I suspect the reason that you see no red vignetting is because the lens is fairly long. The angles that light makes at the corner of the sensor should be no worse than are seen with the 28-35mm lenses in the lineup, and there is not much difference between the three focal lengths in this characteristic. Your pictures tend to confirm this.

It is not so simple with an IR-cut filter out in front, since the angle of view that you will see then depends on the focal length, and the camera currently has no way to know which focal length is set, so even in future firmware there can only be an approximate "one size fits all" correction.

So I would recommend to lose the IR filter and live with an occasional funny color.

scott

[guywalder]

Scott,
Leica could always impliment user selection of FL (with / without filter), it works very well on my Nikons..
ok so the workflow gets a bit cumbersome with M8 + new 3E:
select FL.
Focus.
Set FL on external finder.
Set FL in menu.
Set focus distance on external finder.
Frame subject.

a bit like large format for the 21st century!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by guywalder

Scott,
Leica could always impliment user selection of FL (with / without filter), it works very well on my Nikons..

I agree. I am hoping that the WATE with an IR filter in front (as Leica recommends) will force them to provide menu selection of focal length for all Leica supported lenses.

scott

[Fotomiguel]

TRI-ELMAR16-18-21. Logical design?
Would you buy a 16mm lens and a18 mm lens together? Is there a significant difference between 16mm and 18mm? Would you buy the TRI-ELMAR16-18-21 f4 if you had a 16mm or 18mm f 2 or f 2.8?
I would use the 30% discount on a 16mm or 18mm lenses but I think it’s not going to happen. Instead I will use it for the 75mm f2 apo.
Cheers!

[stunsworth]

Or to put it another way, would you buy a 16mm and a 21mm? I think the answer is yes in my case - and Leica are kind enough to throw in an 18mm option. if you never use the 18mm setting you still have 16/21.

[Peter41951]

Picture no. 2 - marvellous. Upstairs verandah, g&t, crossword, blue sky.........

[osera]

Originally Posted by Peter41951

Picture no. 2 - marvellous. Upstairs verandah, g&t, crossword, blue sky.........

Yes, 'tis nice here this time of year.

Could you tell us if the lens and lens hood blocks part of the RF right bottom corner field of vision at any of its 3 settings, and if so, by how much.

It's not too bad, IMO, especially since I was framing with the external viewer. It brings up the 28-90 frame lines and the hood goes to the lower right corner of the 28 frame. This is pretty much the same point as the 28 /2 ASPH with its hood on. The 28 is shorter but has a wider hood. The diameter of these lenses is similar. The tri is about twice the length, but its hood is about 1/4 the length. Overall, the tri with hood is about 1 cm longer than the 28/2 with hood.

As for the difference between 16 and 18, not too much, and a matter of what mood I'm in more than anything else. I can imagine carefully composed shots where I might choose one vs the other. I'll try to take some later to demonstrate the FOV difference on a real target.

(I'm going to avoid the IR issue with this lens for now. Obviously there will be some concerns with that.)

Meanwhile, here are some 100% crops, just for kicks. This isn't the only important criteria of a useful lens, but is sometimes interesting to look at. As I said in an earlier post, I had increased the sharpening in C1 a bit... maybe too much?

(full frame, center, corners)

[jlm]

I'd like to see the same shot, any shot, 16mm, lens coding on and off

[osera]

Originally Posted by jlm

I'd like to see the same shot, any shot, 16mm, lens coding on and off

John-

Sorry for the delay in getting these posted here.

Here are two test shots, looking for the vignetting in a bland, cloudy sky. Both are at 16mm, f/4, iso 160, the full frame image, processed in C1. I desaturated in CS2 to remove any color consideration from my view. No filters used here.

The first image is with lens detection DISABLED. The second is with it ENABLED.

I also shot at f8 and f16, and also all the same at iso 1250, with the same results.