earleygallery Posted January 10, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought a little Canon sureshot camera I noticed in a charity shop window. 35mm, auto focus, etc., with a twin lens arrangement, 38mm and 80mm - press a button and the lens extends to 80mm and the viewfinder changes accordingly (for a £5 note it might replace my Clux which now has so much dust on the sensor it's becoming a pain to get a useable image). Now, I was thinking, the tri Elmars are a great idea. Why not a 'holy grail' tri Elmar with the three classic focal lengths? OK it's not going to be a fast lens, it might be a tad large, but how convenient would that be for travelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here 35/50/90 Tri Elmar?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted January 10, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 10, 2011 An excellent idea - a 35/50/90 f/4 Tri Elmar would be a very handy travel lens indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 10, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 10, 2011 I feel Leica was premature in discontinuing the 28-35-50, and always had hoped for a 75-90-135 f/4 to go with it. A set of 3 Tri-Elmars would be a killer travel set. Unfortunately, at today's Leica prices the cost would kill any chance of my traveling for about a decade That's basically my issue with any proposed new lens. The prices of new Leica lenses, aside from the Summarits, are far beyond what I would consider paying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 10, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 10, 2011 I bought a little Canon sureshot camera I noticed in a charity shop window. 35mm, auto focus, etc., with a twin lens arrangement, 38mm and 80mm - press a button and the lens extends to 80mm and the viewfinder changes accordingly (for a £5 note it might replace my Clux which now has so much dust on the sensor it's becoming a pain to get a useable image). Now, I was thinking, the tri Elmars are a great idea. Why not a 'holy grail' tri Elmar with the three classic focal lengths? OK it's not going to be a fast lens, it might be a tad large, but how convenient would that be for travelling. James, it is a great lens for travel photography. I have the second version which is slightly improved mechanically and has DOF scales marked. Regarding performance, I find the 35 and 50mm settings virtually comparable with their fixed primes at similar apertures, performance peaking 1.5 or 2 stops down, but perfectly usable wide-open. The 28mm setting is slightly behind the other two settings so, for serious work, I try to avoid using it. In my case it is a twin Elmar lens of high performance, albeit at relatively slow maximum apertures. I occasionally use it together with a 21mm lens which minimizes the need for the 28. I repeat, my own restrictions apply to serious work; for personal photography they would not apply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 10, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 10, 2011 I feel Leica was premature in discontinuing the 28-35-50 [ ... ] I understand that a vital type of glass became unavailable. A complete redesign of the lens would have been necessary, and given the modest sales, Leica did not find this economically viable. The mount too must have been extremely difficult to manufacture, because of its horrendous mechanical innards. I suspect that the MATE did not earn Leica much money. My guess is that the Gnomes of Solms were quite relieved at having an excuse to terminate the beast. The old man from the Age B.Z. (Before Zooms) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 11, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 11, 2011 Just my usual warning for those who haven't seen it that the MATE focussing mount is complex and not hugely robust and consequently expensive to rebuild if it fails as mine did after dropping the lens 18 inches in a bag onto the road. Best advice is to treat the focal length setting ring with kid gloves, make the changes slowly; turn the ring too quickly and you are asking for trouble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 11, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just my usual warning for those who haven't seen it that the MATE focussing mount is complex... Maison du Leica in Paris used to have one of those half cutaway examples of the lens. As Mark says it is _very_ complex. I had several problems with mine losing the indents in the aperture ring - it must have happened 3-4 times over the years I had the lens. I don't know if it was a common problem, but other people here had the same issue. The main problem I had with the lens was size. I could carry a 35mm and 50mm Summicron and they took up no more space. I preferred the extra speed that the Summicrons gave me over the convenience of not having to change lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 11, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 11, 2011 James, I'm with you on this... up to a point. Lars is right - the Tri-Elmar was an incredibly complex lens; if you ever get a chance to see a cutaway drawing, just look at the intricacy and think about the tolerances involved. At first thought I would welcome a "Holy Trinity" Tri-Elmar, and indeed I think I have said so in the past. BUT... I think price and weight would mitigate against it; I would want it as a travel lens, and a slowish aperture would not bother me for that, but it would still be a weighty bit of brass and glass to lug around all day, particularly when I know I would also end up carrying one duplicate focal length for the speed when light levels drop. Part of my logic in recently buying a Sonnar was that it is lighter than the equivalent Summilux. This is a real consideration when out and about - I am not as old as Lars but I am not as young as I used to be, and I have nothing to prove in a "my bag is bigger than yours" contest I treat a 50 as a "3-50-9", anyway... 3 steps back to 35mm, 9 steps forward to 90mm equivalents... Edit: Steve beat me to it! Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 11, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 11, 2011 he main problem I had with the lens was size. I could carry a 35mm and 50mm Summicron and they took up no more space. I preferred the extra speed that the Summicrons gave me over the convenience of not having to change lenses. That was the rub for me too. In fact, carrying a couple of small primes took less space because if I took the Tri-Elmar I would inevitably also carry at least one prime for when light got too low to hand hold at F4. This was when I only used slowish slide film (halcyon days) so I suspect the Tri-Elmar is less of a problem now you can crank the ISO up at will (if you are using an M8/9). The advantage of the Tri-Elmar for me (being intrinsically lazy) was the ease of changing focal lengths but it wasn't enough to prevent me from selling the lens (for about the price of a Summarit nowadays:(). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 11, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 11, 2011 I bought a little Canon sureshot camera I noticed in a charity shop window. 35mm, auto focus, etc., with a twin lens arrangement, 38mm and 80mm - press a button and the lens extends to 80mm and the viewfinder changes accordingly ... James, a bit off topic, but the camera you describe was about the only camera I ever sold. I had bought it new at the time, but it was simply not a good camera. The autofocus was off (off focus that is) more times than on, and the optics were mediocre. There was an Olympus twin something model at around the same time, which could change between 35 and 70mm focal length without moving the optics, that seemed to be a better camera. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 11, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 11, 2011 Intriguing indeed.. but me too think that it probably will not enjoy a great commercial success : - Surely too costly to be appealing as "single lens for new users" (in this sense, for instance, a 35+90 set, expecially with Summarits, is much more appealing) - Traditional users LOVE a lot single focals... the "Tri" should be a luxury add on ... a buy to be considered with attention... - And, thinking well of it, many traditional user should evaluate that they prefer to carry a 35+90 set - The real buyers could be some passionate street shooters for who the time of changing the lens can mean a picture lost, and, of course, the people who, by principle, BUY any new Leica lens that reaches the market... ... to Solms the task to evaluate which numbers can come out from... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted January 11, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 11, 2011 I for one would love the idea of a 35-50-90, but as mentioned, cost, complexity, quantity would probably stop such a venture. I do agree with others that when I take my tri-elmar out, i tend to also take one fast 28, 35, or 50. I find I use it heavily (along with the WATE) in my business when I head to a site to document a building to develop drawings, but I use it considerably less for all my other pursuits (about 1,800 pictures with it just last week at two sites). Overall, especially at 35 and 50, I find it to be a fine lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted January 11, 2011 James, a bit off topic, but the camera you describe was about the only camera I ever sold. I had bought it new at the time, but it was simply not a good camera. The autofocus was off (off focus that is) more times than on, and the optics were mediocre. There was an Olympus twin something model at around the same time, which could change between 35 and 70mm focal length without moving the optics, that seemed to be a better camera. Cheers, Andy Hi Andy, I've not tried the camera yet but will run a film through it soon. I also bought a similar Fuji at a jumble sale last year, it has a wide and standard lens combination (paid a pound for that one! Not developed the film yet). I'm not expecting too much but it's fun trying these cameras out when you can buy them for the price of a beer - I'm hoping I'll find one with a decent lens! I remember my mother getting the first ever model Canon Sureshot, and that had a great lens, it was a prime of about 38mm focal length I think. I also had a Minox which was a great pocket camera but its manual guesstimate focus and the flash is larger than the camera. Now that my pocket Clux sensor is covered with dust I'm going off getting another pocket digicam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted January 11, 2011 I agree, I think the tri elmar would be heavy and complex, and probably far too expensive to make it viable. Nice idea though. I have 35/50/90 lenses for my R3 and when I've travelled with that set I ended up using the 35 about 90% of the time, and the 90 the rest, so yes a couple of primes is the way to go I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 11, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 11, 2011 The problem with the weight of the big lenses, of which the MATE is one and other examples are the wide Summiluxes, Noctilux and 90mm Summicron is not so much the weight itself but the tendency for the camera to lose balance and tip forwards. The need to keep the camera level makes it less comfortable to hold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted January 11, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 11, 2011 You lose the benefit of not having to change lenses, which seems to me to be the biggest advantage of the Tri Elmars, but you can assemble a pretty small travel kit of lenses if you are open to using the 90 Macro. It's a really small lens collapsed. Add in a 50 Summarit or Elmar, and a smallish 28 or 35 of your choice, and you've got a very compact little kit. And everything but the 90 would be faster than f/4 too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted January 11, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 11, 2011 I regret the passing of the MATE, and judging by the ever-increasing price of pre-owned ones, there's a market for them. On a number of occasions I've holidayed with simply the MATE and a 90/4 Macro-Elmar sans macro bits and as I don't usually shoot in stygian gloom I've not missed the larger apertures. The MATE is no bigger/heavier than a 75 or 90 Summicron, and seems to me to be well balanced on the 8/9 body. Currently there's only the WATE available new, but now that things have moved to the M9 rather than the M8, is there now the market for that group of focal lengths, to say nothing of the need for a cumbersome viewfinder? I would rather see Leica drop the WATE and start to make the MATE again, but I have a feeling that a 35/50/90 version might be a bit too bulky. As one gets older one does not wish (or perhaps is not able) to cart around heavy bags of gear - my recent holiday with just an X-1 was a liberating experience! Now a Bi-Elmarit version of that.......! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 11, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 11, 2011 Maison du Leica in Paris used to have one of those half cutaway examples of the lens. ... If anyone has $1,000 to spare there's one for sale here. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 12, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 12, 2011 The idea of one lens covering all three of the "classical" focal lengthes for the Leica M may seem attractive from the buyer's point of view. Though besides all mechanical and weigth/size problems already mentioned I don't see a lens design which might be appropriate for 35mm and 90mm as well. If you look at the Summarits the designs for the 35 and 90mm are completely different - no way of forcing them together in one single mount. One could imagine the old triplet design in a 50 mm as well as a 90mm - it still works for the Makro-Elmar and worked well for the 2.8/50. Yes it even worked for the 3.5/3.5cm Elmar from the early 30s - but today a triplet 35mm would be well below modern standards. I don't think we'll ever see such a wonder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted January 12, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 12, 2011 If anyone has $1,000 to spare there's one for sale here. Pete. For $ 2,000 you could have one ! That´s quite resonable in the light of todays prices. A good idea, thx Pete. Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.