Tri-Elm vs Primes samples and discussion

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sorry but if it takes you 5 minutes to change a lens on a Leica M of any number then there is something terribly wrong with your lenses, camera or you. I was out and about today and had a M3 with me. I changed from a 50mm to a 90mm and back again, with taking 3-5 shots with the 90mm, in under 5 minutes. And that is with reading a external exposure meter and adjusting the shutter speed and or the f/ stop for each shot.

 

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.

[tom0511]

I'm sorry but if it takes you 5 minutes to change a lens on a Leica M of any number then there is something terribly wrong with your lenses, camera or you. I was out and about today and had a M3 with me. I changed from a 50mm to a 90mm and back again, with taking 3-5 shots with the 90mm, in under 5 minutes. And that is with reading a external exposure meter and adjusting the shutter speed and or the f/ stop for each shot.

Wow, how much time did you have left for framing?

 

I didnt want to say that I needed 5 minutes for the change but that 5 minutes later I felt again the need for stopping, taking an kimage and for changing the lens.

If you use a backpack and if you wear gloves and if you are a little carfull regarding dust it might take a moment. Its not so much about the time only, but more that a lazy guy like me tends to not change the lens very often because its sometimes inconvenient.

And then I take the image with a "sub-optimal"-crop.

 

And then there are the times when you just want to carry one lens.

Its a kind of simplicity I sometimes enjoy. Thats a reason why I like the M8 so much. Not as much options, functions and choices compared to a digital SLR. Just witch on, select f-stop and A and shoot.

 

Regards, Tom

[dannirr]

It's not a matter of time to change lenses. Or difficulty.

 

Anyone who has been around digital for a while tries, at any cost, to avoid sensor dirt - and one sure way to do that is not to change lenses if at all possible.

 

Danni

[danielt]

Danni, I agree with your remarks

[Eoin]

I really don't understand peoples fear of sensor dust, it's a fact of life with digital. The Leica lenses are not sealed and if you change or not change your lenses you'll still end up with some contamination on the sensor at some point in time.

 

It's a rather simple proceedure to clean and keep the sensor clean, no more than a rocket blower for day to day use and eclips fluid and pec pads for spots that will not shift with the blower. The key is to use the blower frequently to prevent any ingress baking to the sensor.

 

I'd much rather use the lenses of my choice for the pictures I want to take rather than use a lens born from my fear of changing lenses. Perhaps the T-E is your lens of choice for your needs but it should not be chosen as means to the end of dust. I just think the dust issue is pardon the pun blown out of all perportion.

 

p.s. Do not use caned air of any description

[tom0511]

Tom,

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

 

David, thats the sentence which still leaves me undecided.

For me its not really the dust argument (which is a plus for the Tri but not that important to me) but more to have the right lens in the right moment with me and ready to go.

 

Still I habe to say that a Tri on a .58 sounds more usefull to me than it is on a M8 with the crop factor.

 

I shot some more images this morning and at 50mm the sharpness etc. is not much different from my 50cron.

At 28 at f-stops from f4,5.6 and f8 the difference in clearness, micro contrast and sharpness is visible on screen in direct comparison.

I will make some prints later.

Regards, Tom

[Donald]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just had a quick look at Erwin Puts his review on the 3E again before commenting and in this subject I miss two points. First the 3E will give you the option of taking the shot at the right angle where as with primes in many cases you will want to change the lens and the opportunity might be gone. However more important. A 3E is about $3000. A 28,35 and 50 prime come at $ 10,000.00. with three times the weight. Have you guys all won the lottery or are we theoritising the issue here? Buying second hand is not an option as Erwin Puts states that the 3E will outperform any older lens than the current range.

 

Donald

[tom0511]

Just had a quick look at Erwin Puts his review on the 3E again before commenting and in this subject I miss two points. First the 3E will give you the option of taking the shot at the right angle where as with primes in many cases you will want to change the lens and the opportunity might be gone. However more important. A 3E is about $3000. A 28,35 and 50 prime come at $ 10,000.00. with three times the weight. Have you guys all won the lottery or are we theoritising the issue here? Buying second hand is not an option as Erwin Puts states that the 3E will outperform any older lens than the current range.

 

Donald

 

I bought my 28cron asph, my 35/1.4asph and my 50cron all used.

I doubt that the Tri-Elmar is better than a 35cron or 50 cron.

Also there are CV lenses aand Zeiss lenses.

The only lenses I did not find used were the 50/1.4asph and the 24/2.8.

 

If you get the Tri-Elmar you would probably want at least one additional fast lens, so I think you would not save much money if any.

 

I agree with you about the advantage of takeing the shot at the right angle at the right time.

 

thanks for your feedback

[tom0511]

I just wanted to thank you guys for all the TE-feeback.

I keep the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 and am quite happy with it.

I went to a birthday-party yesterday I realized that when you use flash its a very flexible lenss for such occasions as well.

I decided for myself that I can live with the minor differences in IQ compared to the primes.

I think its also great for such occasions, when I dont want to carry to many lens-$$ in my bag.

[AlanJW]

I have used a 28-35-50 TE fo ryears with an M7 and now with an M8. I agree that for indoor work f/4 can present limitations, but for outdoor or other work where there is sufficient light, it is an excellent performer. Now on the M8 the ability to change ISO on the fly also helps when f4 is the max. I also have a 50mm f2 Summicron for the times when I just have to have the extra stops -- or want to minimize DOF. There's always flash too of course (though I almost never use it, I have an SF20 that works on the M8 -- though no TTL).

 

As for quality, I agree with the posters who have said that the prrof is in the printing, and not what is on the monitor. I have done 13 x 19 prints and they are excellent. Of course looking at the pixels on a digital file, one could find differences, but the digital files can also be post-processed (reasonably, without acrobatics) and that minimizes any differences from a prime.

 

All of this has led me to put a WATE on order. I think the two TE's and the Summicron (yes, I'd love a Lux but $$ does start to be an issue at some pouint) are a very nice compact travel kit.

[sean_reid]

Buying second hand is not an option as Erwin Puts states that the 3E will outperform any older lens than the current range.

 

Donald

 

Donald,

 

I would recommend being skeptical of an absolute statement like that from anyone. It's too broad, too general and ignores the fact that we don't all have the same priorities in what we expect from a lens. As I showed in my review of the TE (on the Epson R-D1) it shows less resolution at each focal length than, respectively, the CV 28/1.9, CV 35/1.7 and CV 50/1.5. Together, those three lenses, with adapters, would cost about $1300.00

 

But, of course, resolution isn't everything. Its impossible to make claims like "better" or "outperform" without first specifying what qualities are a priority for one. The TE is softer and slower than a set of primes but there are good reasons to own and use it nonetheless. I happen to like the lens quite a bit, particularly because of its color and contrast characteristics. I also think that there can be undeniable advantages to be able to change focal lengths with the twist of a wrist.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[jrc]

Buying second hand is not an option as Erwin Puts states that the 3E will outperform any older lens than the current range.

Donald

 

Actually, he doesn't quite say that -- he lists a number of exceptions among the older lenses.

 

One of the things he does say is that the 3E "hardly improves" upon stopping-down; you don't have to go to f8; it's very close to as good as it gets at f4. Puts has had some problems in dealing with digital, but for these kinds of tests, I think he is excellent.

 

See here:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/trielmar.html

 

JC

[jaapv]

It is an ideal lens for the smallest carry/around kit, apart from a single small prime, that is. The quality is similar to the pre-asperical series of Leica, Erwin Puts had a comparison and comes to the same conclusion. I would say that for holiday/ski slopes and similar applictions it is first choice.

 

 

 

 

[DaveEP]

A TE is something I have also considered for out-doors shooting. I read Sean's article with interest. Out doors I am often shooting in the F8-F11 range, so being an F4 lens makes no difference, especially since I am not trying to focus through it like I would be on a DSLR. I would change to primes if/when the light drops.

 

The drop in quality is all relative of course. I am printing up to A2, so the question on my mind is will I notice any significant difference, and almost as important is 'at normal viewing distance - will any one else' (excluding pixel peepers of course) ??

 

Dust is my pet hate with digital, and anything that helps reduce it is welcome. However, at this point I only have primes for the M.

[tom0511]

Donald,

 

I would recommend being skeptical of an absolute statement like that from anyone. It's too broad, too general and ignores the fact that we don't all have the same priorities in what we expect from a lens. As I showed in my review of the TE (on the Epson R-D1) it shows less resolution at each focal length than, respectively, the CV 28/1.9, CV 35/1.7 and CV 50/1.5. Together, those three lenses, with adapters, would cost about $1300.00

 

But, of course, resolution isn't everything. Its impossible to make claims like "better" or "outperform" without first specifying what qualities are a priority for one. The TE is softer and slower than a set of primes but there are good reasons to own and use it nonetheless. I happen to like the lens quite a bit, particularly because of its color and contrast characteristics. I also think that there can be undeniable advantages to be able to change focal lengths with the twist of a wrist.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I followed the recommendation of some posters and compared prints instead of screen views. Differences which appear obvious on screen seem to show up much minor in prints.

 

This makes me wonder if the small differences between very good and excellent lenses might be overrated sometimes.

I even think that today, if I was not owning allready many Leica lenses, I might just get the lenses you listed (CV 28/1.9, CV 35/1.7 and CV 50/1.5) instead of the Leica-counterparts.

 

I find that slight focus inaccurancies often have much more influence on detail than the differences between different lenses.

 

On the other side I am still kind of a "Leica-truster" - think that getting the Leica lens you are on the "safe-side". Reviews help a lot but are often with one sample, often one distance, one kind of light etc.

I think its like shoes, you just need to wear them for a while until you know if they fit really good.

[Donald]

Thanks Sean and JC for your replies. Before making any bold comment I thought I use Erwin Puts his review on 3E. He is one of the two most respected Leica reviewers (the other one being Sean of course) and his comments make fine reading.

However in the end it is more important that the shot is made instead of talking about it. Otherwise we might as well begin a political party! I can imagine Oscar Barnack must have had similar pro's and cons about producing a 35 mm camera. If he only kept talking about it we would be without this forum and be feeding the ducks.

 

Donald

[sean_reid]

A TE is something I have also considered for out-doors shooting. I read Sean's article with interest. Out doors I am often shooting in the F8-F11 range, so being an F4 lens makes no difference, especially since I am not trying to focus through it like I would be on a DSLR. I would change to primes if/when the light drops.

 

The drop in quality is all relative of course. I am printing up to A2, so the question on my mind is will I notice any significant difference, and almost as important is 'at normal viewing distance - will any one else' (excluding pixel peepers of course) ??

 

Dust is my pet hate with digital, and anything that helps reduce it is welcome. However, at this point I only have primes for the M.

 

Hi Dave,

 

You probably won't notice a significant difference because the TE is, overall, a very good lens and very useable. The resolution differences between it and certain RF primes exist but, in many case, may not matter at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I followed the recommendation of some posters and compared prints instead of screen views.

 

1) Differences which appear obvious on screen seem to show up much minor in prints.

 

This makes me wonder if the small differences between very good and excellent lenses might be overrated sometimes.

I even think that today, if I was not owning allready many Leica lenses, I might just get the lenses you listed (CV 28/1.9, CV 35/1.7 and CV 50/1.5) instead of the Leica-counterparts.

 

2) I find that slight focus inaccurancies often have much more influence on detail than the differences between different lenses.

 

3) On the other side I am still kind of a "Leica-truster" - think that getting the Leica lens you are on the "safe-side". Reviews help a lot but are often with one sample, often one distance, one kind of light etc. I think its like shoes, you just need to wear them for a while until you know if they fit really good.

 

Hi Tom,

 

1) 100% on screen almost always reveals qualities that are not obvious in prints. This varies by print size, viewing distance, etc. but one can sometimes get an approximate sense of print appearance by viewing at 50% on screen.

 

2) That's very true.

 

3) I try to work with all lenses in various kinds of light, at various distances, etc. but you're right that reviewers are normally working with one sample.of a lens although sometimes it's possible to sample several. The importance of sample variation can be different for various lenses. The Leica lenses, for example, tend to be very consistent from example to example whereas lenses such as the CV Skopars can vary. I like the shoe analogy.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Thanks Sean and JC for your replies. Before making any bold comment I thought I use Erwin Puts his review on 3E. He is one of the two most respected Leica reviewers (the other one being Sean of course) and his comments make fine reading.

However in the end it is more important that the shot is made instead of talking about it. Otherwise we might as well begin a political party! I can imagine Oscar Barnack must have had similar pro's and cons about producing a 35 mm camera. If he only kept talking about it we would be without this forum and be feeding the ducks.

 

Donald

 

Its true that often the subtle differences among lenses can pale next the importance of what the photographer does.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Jaap,

very nice images.

Question: Do you use the hood for the TE?