marknorton Posted January 28, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm wondering how many film users - either full time or mixed film/digital - are planning to buy the new 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar. It was one of the "interesting wide angle solutions" to the M8's crop factor but it is also a FF lens, So are you planning one for your film body? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2007 Posted January 28, 2007 Hi marknorton, Take a look here Planning to use the new Tri-Elmar?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
frc Posted January 30, 2007 Share #2 Posted January 30, 2007 Considering the amount of replies, not to many;-) It is of no use to me, my 21 hardly ever gets used. 35 in use 90% of the time. 9,8% 28, 75 and 90. 0,2% 21 and 50. But if you're planning to do architecture, WATE should do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 30, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 30, 2007 It would be a lens for fun but I can't see it's getting much use in my type of photography ... I think it's not worth the ticket given its so-so control over distortion, and taking the filter, cyan corners into account, etc. 16mm, 18mm are simply too wide on FF ... people won't use it for architecture due to its distortion, basically it's only good for the wild west type of stuff IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 30, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 30, 2007 16mm, 18mm are simply too wide on FF ... Don't agree, but it does take a certain eye to create great pictures with such a wide angle. Like frc, my widest normal lens is in the 28mm/35mm area, with 21mm relegated to occasional use. Even if that were not the case though, it would be cheaper by far to simply buy a 21mm and/or 15mm lenses from Voigtlander or Zeiss (or even Leica!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 30, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 30, 2007 16mm, 18mm are simply too wide on FF ... people won't use it for architecture due to its distortion, basically it's only good for the wild west type of stuff IMO. Largely agree. Architectural use is the most common application of an extreme wide angle but I'm not sure the new Tri-Elmar is going to cut the mustard for serious use (I know that distortion can be corrected to a certain extent in post-processing but I - and many others - prefer to get it right in-camera). The 15mm Zeiss looks to be the more useful buy at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucklik Posted January 30, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 30, 2007 Considering the amount of replies, not to many;-) I also hardly use my 21 VC. 1) is 35 cron asph 2) 50 cron and tri-elmar (28-50) 3) 28 cron asph 4) 90 elmarit But I would be interested if would buy a M8, but at this moment film has more mogic to me. I suppose there would be many more replies if this was posted on the digital forum. rgs Luc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 30, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I will be ordering one for my M8 where it becomes an effective 21/24/28 mm field of view. The kit price (Tri-Elmar & Universal finder) to M8 early adopters is substantually less than retail, or even what a used price may be 2 years out. So, sure, I'll also use it on the MP3, why not? I use a 16-35 mm on a fullframe Canon frequently enough to know what is possible ... or better yet ... fun : -) Distortion is no brainer because I scan and the distortion control in PS is nothing short of amazing. 16mm on a Canon full frame: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/14630-planning-to-use-the-new-tri-elmar/?do=findComment&comment=157207'>More sharing options...
budrichard Posted January 30, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 30, 2007 Let's see? f4.0 That's puts us back into the 1930's or so and rules out any available light except on a tri-pod. Big dual use viewfinder mounted on top of camera requiring switching back and forth if using rangefinder. No I don't think so! I'll stick to my 35 'lux Asph, 75 Sum Asph and 90mm Asph was well as a few other M3 Rf lenses! -Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted January 30, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 30, 2007 My kind of photography requires one.At present this is covered by a Nikkor 18mmf2.8 on an F5. But where are these lenses? Anybody anywhere seen one ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted January 30, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 30, 2007 Let's see? f4.0 That's puts us back into the 1930's or so and rules out any available light except on a tri-pod. Big dual use viewfinder mounted on top of camera requiring switching back and forth if using rangefinder. No I don't think so! I'll stick to my 35 'lux Asph, 75 Sum Asph and 90mm Asph was well as a few other M3 Rf lenses! -Dick The new Tri-Elmar, even on the M8, is quit a bit wider than 35, so I think the cimparison is not fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 30, 2007 Share #11 Posted January 30, 2007 Yeah, f/4 isn't thrilling ... but for wide work you can hand hold slower shutter speeds with reasonable results. Wouldn't select it for an "only" lens anyway. Good walk around lens maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted January 31, 2007 Share #12 Posted January 31, 2007 I'm thinking about the WATE. Will depend a lot on what they come up with for M8 compatibility (the whole filter v. lens hood issue). I don't own an M8 yet, but will want one once all the kinks are worked out, so don't feel like buying equipment that isn't going to be optimally compatible. I have a 500.00 coupon received when I bought a second M7 body recently, so similar to those with 30% discounts, I'm weighing my options on what to use it for. Could be an M8, but I'm leaning toward a lens... Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 31, 2007 Share #13 Posted January 31, 2007 Yeah, f/4 isn't thrilling ... but for wide work you can hand hold slower shutter speeds with reasonable results. Wouldn't select it for an "only" lens anyway. Good walk around lens maybe. Cartier-Bresson had to put up with f/3.5 when he started, and that was with films losing a stop or two even to K25. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted January 31, 2007 Share #14 Posted January 31, 2007 Not to be argumentative but I started with a Brownie box camera. My first real camera was a Ziess Ikon Contaflex with 2.8 tessar. It wasn't until I used an M3 with 50mm Summicron, that I could do available light other than bright daylight. It's not a matter about what individuals did in the past but about what is available in the present. F 4.0 is useless for available light where the M system is best. For outdoor exposures, any SLR will suffice. I use my M's for low light rapidly changing conditions with motors, hence the 1.4 and 2.0 lenses. My next acquisition will be a 21mm 2.8 ASPH which is as small an aperature as i want to go. Living in the past with a hulking big viewer on the camera is not my idea of how to take a picture. The lens and viewfinder appear to be a compromise solution for two different camera systems that certainly doesn't satisfy my film M camera requirements. -Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicapfile Posted February 2, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 2, 2007 Don't think I'll be getting one. And yes, the expense is but one of the considerations. Another is that don't believe I'll be getting an M8, hence I'll have no need to purchase a lens that will get me up to the low to mid-twenties in focal length. The other is the practicality of it. How often would I be using it? Maybe 1% of total exposures? Even that is probably stretching it. I'm sure it is a marvelous lens, but if I wanted (or needed) to get into horizon to horizon images, I would be better served by starting with one of those $500 15mm lenses to dangle my toe in that photographic water first. Should that $2 per week I 'invest' in Mega-Millions lottery tickets pay off... well, maybe a different story then. Best, Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigrmurray Posted February 5, 2007 Share #16 Posted February 5, 2007 Mark: I'd love to have one, when I can scrape up the money. I shoot my 15mm R lens a lot on the R9, and have a 16-35mm Canon on the 5D, and often wish it were wider. From reading this thread it appears most don't care much for really wide lenses, and admittedly, they're not the easiest things to shoot well. 'Course, one can always mount them on the M8 for a 21-24-28 combo. Sure, f4 is slow, but can't be beat for a travel and outdoor lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 6, 2007 Share #17 Posted February 6, 2007 My use will be mostly on a M8 to achieve the 21-24-28 focal lengths missing from my lens line-up. I use these for "getting ready" shots at weddings, which are often in a confined space. I use f/4 or 5.6 with flash for these anyway due to bad lighting scenarios. A S-Fill diffuser on a SF24D will help with the wider coverage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted February 6, 2007 Share #18 Posted February 6, 2007 Let's see? f4.0 That's puts us back into the 1930's or so and rules out any available light except on a tri-pod. Big dual use viewfinder mounted on top of camera requiring switching back and forth if using rangefinder. No I don't think so! I'll stick to my 35 'lux Asph, 75 Sum Asph and 90mm Asph was well as a few other M3 Rf lenses! -Dick Since when did the quality or content or subjectiveness of a photograph been decided by f-numbers ? This is NOT a street scene rapid fire optic....it requires time,composition and thought ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerdoc Posted February 7, 2007 Share #19 Posted February 7, 2007 Of course I'll use on the film camera! Don't like the hunky VF but if it works as advertised I'll like it. And FWIW this apparently is a 'true' zoom in that you can set it in between focal lengths and the the VF adjustas as well. So an additional bit of versatility. Of course, I don't know when I'll actually see one in person as I hear they are not realeased yet. I think Sean Reid has a review due on the WATE soon. Cheers.... Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted February 7, 2007 Share #20 Posted February 7, 2007 Since when did the quality or content or subjectiveness of a photograph been decided by f-numbers ? This is NOT a street scene rapid fire optic....it requires time,composition and thought ! The original question asked if any users would be using this lens on a film body. I answered. If you don't like my answer and reasons that is your problem. I also explained how exactly I use my Lieca's, not for time, composition and thought. I also explained my reasoning that this lens is a compormise for both the film and digital systems that an f4.0 maximum aperature and big external viewfinder. Now if you only photograph in bright sunlight or indoors with flash and don't mind the external viewfinder, this lens may be for you, but it is useless for me. I don't worship at the alter of Leica but evaluate the equipment for my needs. Not everything that comes from Lieca is useful to me. I have learned to be objective. -Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.