Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
steve70

M(9 & 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

In aticipation of the hopefull arrival of my new M9 next week, I picked up at a reasonable price a Leica refurbished 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar sans finder. I actually have a Voightlander 21mm finder, and that should suffice.

I also have an M6 that the lens is currently on, but have not processed the film.

Does anyone out ther have any experiance with this lens on an M9?, anything that I shoudl be aware of?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve- Welcome to the Forum. I've used the 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar on the M9, with pleasing results. I've experienced no problems or issues.

 

Some users have reported cyan drift in the corners of their images. This is easily dealt with in post processing by using Cornerfix if you do encounter this.

 

Below are some test images I took in the first few days of getting my M9.

Tri-Elmar @ 16mm

Tri-Elmar @ 18mm

Tri_Elmar @ 21mm

Tri-Elmar @ 16mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one from last week-end. Forum in Pompeii with Vesuvius in background. M9 and WATE at 16mm.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Now hopefully the M9 will be in this week as promised.But of course promise has been made a few times previously!.

 

Oh!, am looking for a Tri-Emar 28-35-50 if anyone has one for sale.

 

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you.

Now hopefully the M9 will be in this week as promised.But of course promise has been made a few times previously!.

 

Oh!, am looking for a Tri-Emar 28-35-50 if anyone has one for sale.

 

Thanks again

 

Ffordes have one at the moment but from the pic, I think it is the less desirable V1.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you.

Now hopefully the M9 will be in this week as promised.But of course promise has been made a few times previously!.

 

Oh!, am looking for a Tri-Emar 28-35-50 if anyone has one for sale.

 

Thanks again

 

Hi Steve

Welcome!

I have the WATE (16-18-21) Tri-elmar. It's great on the M9.

I also wanted a 28-35-50. I tried 2 version 1 models, and both of them showed very poor contrast at 50mm - I don't know if this is also a trouble with the Version 2, but I would have a good test before paying out what will be a lot of money (they're really expensive secondhand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Steve

Welcome!

I have the WATE (16-18-21) Tri-elmar. It's great on the M9.

I also wanted a 28-35-50. I tried 2 version 1 models, and both of them showed very poor contrast at 50mm - I don't know if this is also a trouble with the Version 2, but I would have a good test before paying out what will be a lot of money (they're really expensive secondhand).

 

Jono,

 

On the V2, which I have, the definition and contrast is pretty acceptable at the 50mm setting. It is not up to the Zeiss 50 ZM Planar I also have but the contrast on that is almost too high. Here is an example and a crop taken from it with the M9 at 50mm. The weakest length by some margin is 28mm, where the corners at f4 are quite soft.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jono,

 

On the V2, which I have, the definition and contrast is pretty acceptable at the 50mm setting. It is not up to the Zeiss 50 ZM Planar I also have but the contrast on that is almost too high. Here is an example and a crop taken from it with the M9 at 50mm. The weakest length by some margin is 28mm, where the corners at f4 are quite soft.

 

Wilson

 

HI Wilson

that looks fine - it wasn't with all shots, but when it happened it was quite horrid (on two different lenses) - but it was the V1. . . . . and it also happened on the M8, whereas the V2 I foolishly sold to Tim Ashley was fine on the M8.

 

I'm rather hoping they'll bring out another one with a closer focusing distance

.

 

Is that Positano? It's clearly somewhere on the Amalfi coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think it's Positano but it has me stumped. It's not Praiano which is my favourite spot...

 

There's supposedly no difference between the two MATEs optically - I have both and don't see any difference - but I expect that Leica could do better today if they turned their current skills towards developing a new lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid Jono gets the banana - it's Positano last week-end. I was trying to identify the hotel my parents used to stay at in the early 1960's. I am fairly sure it is the white building at the far end of the beach with the wooden stairs leading up to it. My parents were told it was 100m from the beach, which was true horizontally but not necessarily vertically. Having walked about 1,000 feet down from the main Amalfi road at the top, after lunch, we were very grateful to find there was a small shuttle bus back up.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve- Welcome to the Forum. I've used the 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar on the M9, with pleasing results. I've experienced no problems or issues.

 

Some users have reported cyan drift in the corners of their images. This is easily dealt with in post processing by using Cornerfix if you do encounter this.

 

Below are some test images I took in the first few days of getting my M9.

 

Tri-Elmar @ 16mm

[ATTACH]174613[/ATTACH]

 

Sorry for the off-topic but I am slightly amazed that you brought it sailing. Is there any casing to protect from the elements when you shoot?

 

I took my M8 fishing on a small wooden boat (only slightly bigger than a canoe) in Thailand and had to get a small water proof bag to put it in. But it had no protection against rain or splashes when I took it out to use. Luckily the water was dead clam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am afraid Jono gets the banana - it's Positano last week-end. I was trying to identify the hotel my parents used to stay at in the early 1960's. I am fairly sure it is the white building at the far end of the beach with the wooden stairs leading up to it. My parents were told it was 100m from the beach, which was true horizontally but not necessarily vertically. Having walked about 1,000 feet down from the main Amalfi road at the top, after lunch, we were very grateful to find there was a small shuttle bus back up.

 

Wilson

 

Yes - not the usual angle of shooting Positano - I remembered it because I walked down the steps and swam at the far end of that beach . . I think it was in March (brrrr). We then drove to Amalfi, had too much supper and thought we'd take the 'short cut' back to Pompeii over the top . . . terrifying drive in a van with 3 kids in the back. When we got to the top, there was Halley's comet clear as clear over Vesuvius - memorable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's supposedly no difference between the two MATEs optically - I have both and don't see any difference - but I expect that Leica could do better today if they turned their current skills towards developing a new lens.

 

HI Mark

I'm confused by this - I had a version 2, which I was quite happy with on the M8, but foolishly sold).

I bought a version 1 from ffordes, it was a decent price, and looked perfect (correct framelines etc. etc.). However - I got some really milky shots at 50mm, so I sent it back and they exchanged it for another . . . which had the same problem. I tried them both on the M8 as well, with the same issue (very strange).

 

Possibly I'm going bonkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would that milkiness be Jono - flare? Surprises me because if anything the V1 is less prone to flare with its more deeply recessed front element.

 

As I understand it, the optical core is the same, the second version has DoF markings, more positive click stops for the focal length ring and a focussing finger-grip. It's by some margin the most complex lens mount Leica have ever made for the M and is very delicate and is easily damaged - I dropped mine inside a Crumpler bag about 2 feet and the lens locked solid and had to be rebuilt by Leica.

 

Doesn't sound too plausible but it's the first time I've ever heard of complaints about the lens at 50mm. As Wilson says, it's a bit soft at 28mm.

 

Yes, I was wrong about Positano - Wilson was at the top of the pile you most normally see in images of the town. I know that over-the-top route from Amalfi to Pompeii, not for the faint-hearted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what would that milkiness be Jono - flare? Surprises me because if anything the V1 is less prone to flare with its more deeply recessed front element.

 

As I understand it, the optical core is the same, the second version has DoF markings, more positive click stops for the focal length ring and a focussing finger-grip. It's by some margin the most complex lens mount Leica have ever made for the M and is very delicate and is easily damaged - I dropped mine inside a Crumpler bag about 2 feet and the lens locked solid and had to be rebuilt by Leica.

 

Doesn't sound too plausible but it's the first time I've ever heard of complaints about the lens at 50mm. As Wilson says, it's a bit soft at 28mm.

 

I'm pretty sure wasn't flare - It certainly wasn't related to pointing into the sun. Seemed to be worse in the middle of the frame . . I sent samples to Leica, and everyone agreed it wasn't that great - one lens could have been my carelessness, but two seems less likely!

 

It rather put me off my search for a replacement of my old version 2. Maybe they'll make another one which is better optically and focuses more closely . . . at current version 2 prices it would probably be as cheap as well!

 

Yes, I was wrong about Positano - Wilson was at the top of the pile you most normally see in images of the town. I know that over-the-top route from Amalfi to Pompeii, not for the faint-hearted.

 

I only recognised it because I recognised the swimming spot (never do forget those chilly swims!).

 

That's the one - glad you found the route scary - after a drink (it was a long time ago) and in the dark with grumpy kids it was particularly dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound too plausible but it's the first time I've ever heard of complaints about the lens at 50mm.

 

I've complained in the past about occasional veiling glare at the 50mm setting with the Tri-Elmar. This might be the same thing as what Jono describes as "milkiness". The veiling glare was fairly unpredictable (didn't always occur with the sun in or near the frame) and was one of the reasons why I ended up selling the lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...