Tri-Elm vs Primes samples and discussion

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since I have a Tri-Elmar (28-35-50) for testing/evaluating I shot some comparisons with primes (28asph, 35luxasph and 50cron).

You can find them here:

tri-elmar Photo Gallery by TOM at pbase.com

 

I feel the Tri-images in this sample look fine/acceptable but the difference is not hard to see.

 

Maybe I should have shot also some images at f8.

 

I am torn between keeping the Tri or not. If I keep it than it would be for walkaround, outdoor activity like hiking etc.

Weight is one reason but the fact that lens-changing is bugging me sometimes (when you want to be fast) is another. Dust is a third reason FOR the Tri-E.

 

But would I allways have something in mind like "if I had my prime on the M8 the image would deliever still more detail and sharpness"?

 

How do you guys feel about that question?

 

Thanks for any Tri-Elmar feedback, ideas, experience

 

Happy Weekend, Tom

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Shootist]

I don't think I would ever buy one of the Tri focal length lenses for the simple fact is they are f/4. Not a very good low light lens. Changing lenses is a fact of photography life, even with SLR's and real zoom type lenses. If the time factor of the lens change is bothering you about Leica Primes then maybe you need to rethink your camera choice for that particular shoot.

[tom0511]

I don't think I would ever buy one of the Tri focal length lenses for the simple fact is they are f/4. Not a very good low light lens. Changing lenses is a fact of photography life, even with SLR's and real zoom type lenses. If the time factor of the lens change is bothering you about Leica Primes then maybe you need to rethink your camera choice for that particular shoot.

 

Example: I go for a XC_Ski_day-hike. You come to beautiful places and experience wonderful light. Now its cold, you sweat and your girl-friend is kind of bothered to stop for taking images. You have the 28lens on the camera but you know that the 50 would give the better image. You change the lens. 5 minutes later the same but 28 would be nicer. you change again. 10 minutes later, 35 would be ideal. Your girl-friend doesnt even wait any more for you and you will have to keep up. Ok, just take the image with the 50 and move on.

 

The thing is that I am not strictly go for photographing OR go for activities. I like to combine my activ-nature experiences with my activities.

I have a D200 for heavy duty and tele and fast action, but try to use the M8 as much as I can since I prefer the output to that of the D200.

[Eoin]

your girl-friend is kind of bothered to stop for taking images.

 

Photography is full of compromises, change her to one who has an interest and then you have someone who'll carry a lens for you, maybe even a 2nd body:p

[Eoin]

Seriously though, it's unfair to compare a lens wide open against a prime stopped down between 1 and 3 stops. It's plainly obvious the T-E lacks the clarity of the primes but shooting at 5.6 or 8 requires a decent amount of light and while I'd like the ease of dial in focal length I don't think I'd compromise with f/4.

[george +]

Many thanks for the comparison shots. I was seriously thinking about getting the Tri - particularly after reading the many glowing reports.

 

But your comparisons kind of talk me out of it.

 

Any other comparisons? Please . . . .

[asmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose the ideal solution is to carry more than one body - each fitted with a lens of different focal lengths. With my pre M8 cameras I carry two M7s and a M6ttl with 35, 50 and 90 lenses. So far, I have only one M8 but ideally I'd like two with 28 an 50 lnses. That would cover almost all of my needs.

[asmith]

I suppose the ideal solution is to carry more than one body - each fitted with a lens of different focal lengths. With my pre M8 cameras I carry two M7s and a M6ttl with 35, 50 and 90 lenses. So far, I have only one M8 but ideally I'd like two with 28 an 50 lnses. That would cover almost all of my needs.

Alwyn

[tom0511]

For me 2 M8s are not really an option.

But I understand that it should be ideal for reportage and wedding and stuff like that.

[tom0511]

Many thanks for the comparison shots. I was seriously thinking about getting the Tri - particularly after reading the many glowing reports.

 

But your comparisons kind of talk me out of it.

 

Any other comparisons? Please . . . .

 

George , I posted few more images in the same gallery.

Also have a look at the different appearance of the bokeh in the yellow "flower" shot

[dannirr]

I have 2 M8 bodies - one carries the 28/35/50 TE, and one the 16/18/21 TE. A Noctilux is in the bag, if needed. This effectively gives me 21/24/28/35/45/65 without having to change lenses.

 

Although f4 can be a nuisance, it is only occasional and I can live with that.

 

The difference from prime lenses is small, and even less so or non-existant after processing. This is different from film where the post-processing was not an option.

 

Danni

..... having fun again

[tom0511]

I have 2 M8 bodies - one carries the 28/35/50 TE, and one the 16/18/21 TE. A Noctilux is in the bag, if needed. This effectively gives me 21/24/28/35/45/65 without having to change lenses.

..... having fun again

 

and you do need only 3 filters

[earleygallery]

I don't think one should make comparisons between lenses on VGA resolution images, make some 16X20 prints and get people to comment on them. Whilst the Tri Elmar is convenient, one of the main benefits of using a Leica is the fast aperture performance which the Tri can't offer.

 

Any 'zoom' lens is never going to be as good as the best primes, but it comes down to whether the differences will be noticeable in the real world (how large do you typically print for example) and your type of photography.

 

If you are typically shooting at f5.6 or less then you don't need the advantage of a fast prime and the Tri Elmar might be the best solution for you, maybe with a 35 f2 or 1.4 when needed.

[danielt]

If you can live with f4 TE es is the best option - After procesing the difference ?? between primes and TE are minimal.

I own Elmarit 28mm coded, Summicron 35mm coded and TE 1st version also coded, and TE is > 95% of the time attached to my M8

[dannirr]

Any 'zoom' lens is never going to be as good as the best primes, but it comes down to whether the differences will be noticeable in the real world (how large do you typically print for example) and your type of photography.

 

I think it is true that prints are the best final judge.

 

I also think it is important to point out, for those who might get confused by the 'zoom' comment that a TE is not a zoom lens. (I know that's why you put the ' ' marks). It seems there are many new Leica users on these forums and they may not understand the real technology of the TE.

 

I dont agree that the major benefit of Leica lenses are their speed - it certainly is a benefit but one that is shared by many manufacturers. I would argue that the major benefit is the lens design which in turn leads to the distinct Leica look these lenses yield, and ther TE has the Elmar design.

 

Most importantly though - we should choose equipment based on our individual needs and likes - and for me f4 is almost always just fine. When I need more light or less depth of field I change lenses - but that is not often for my style of compact photography. When I need/want ultimate control, I change to my 4x5 digital system and expoit it's benefits but also live within it's limitations.

 

Danni

[pemayeux]

After having received the M8 yesterday, I'm going to go for the tri-e to use as a general purpose lens for walking around in the daylight. I've got the 35,50 and 75 luxs for specialized use and for the MP, but the 35 on the M8 is a little too tight for most of my shooting which on the MP is 90% 35, 9.9% 50 and 0.1% 75. With the 28 option, I'd have essentially my 35 for most shots and the others for those specialized shots.

[earleygallery]

Danni, yes, I should really have used the term vari-focal length rather than 'zoom'.

 

On the point of fast lenses, to clarify, its not the speed rather that Leica design their optics to perform fully at the fastest apertures. Also an optically perfect fast aperture coupled with the low shutter speed hand held capability of the rangefinder offers advantages over a typical SLR.

 

But I go back to the point that its what works for you in the real world that matters.

[tom0511]

I think it is true that prints are the best final judge.

 

I also think it is important to point out, for those who might get confused by the 'zoom' comment that a TE is not a zoom lens. (I know that's why you put the ' ' marks). It seems there are many new Leica users on these forums and they may not understand the real technology of the TE.

 

I dont agree that the major benefit of Leica lenses are their speed - it certainly is a benefit but one that is shared by many manufacturers. I would argue that the major benefit is the lens design which in turn leads to the distinct Leica look these lenses yield, and ther TE has the Elmar design.

 

Most importantly though - we should choose equipment based on our individual needs and likes - and for me f4 is almost always just fine. When I need more light or less depth of field I change lenses - but that is not often for my style of compact photography. When I need/want ultimate control, I change to my 4x5 digital system and expoit it's benefits but also live within it's limitations.

 

Danni

 

I totally agree that speed is not the only advantage. For daylight photography outside f4 is fine for me.

Of course the Tri-Elmar is not an indoor and available light lens. I wouldnt want it to replace (a) fast prime(s) but as an addition.

 

I should do some prints as you guys recommend, but I am afraid I also would see the difference in the prints which I see on screen.

However I have to point out that I do find the image quality in this sample fine, no real weakness. Just not exceptional as the primes.

 

I have not yet decided what to do but lean toward not keeping the Tri-Elmar.

Maybe I should not have done the direct comparison and would have never realized the difference.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bill vann]

well i'm looking for a tri. f4 is not usually a problem and when it is i have a few faster lenses in the bag.

 

i'm thinking at 5.6 / 8 in print you won't see a difference, and coming from slr?? it will likely be a big improvement even over Canon L glass

 

bill

[wda]

 

Thanks for any Tri-Elmar feedback, ideas, experience

 

Happy Weekend, Tom

Tom,

 

I have been well pleased with my TE for travel use for all the reasons already covered. I use it mainly at f/8 when differences are minimal. But, I always have at least one fast prime with me for marginal lighting conditions. (The TE works well at F/4 when needed, but not my first choice if it can be avoided. A small penalty, I think).

I regularly scan TE EBX film shots and only when examining them at pixel sizes do I start to feel slightly uncomfortable about the definition. But translated into print sizes those huge enlargements would be way bigger than anyone would really want. At A3 or A4 they are superb.

 

As said already, is it better to bag a good picture which might be very slightly soft or miss one completely that could have been stunning quality had the right prime been fitted and slow fine grained film been loaded.

 

David