Tri Elmar vs Elmar2.8/28

[t024484]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just for the record.

I received my M8 today, together with a Tri Elmar 28/35/50 and an Elmar 2.8/28, the latter two for a try out.

The much as I would have liked to keep the Tri Elmar, the prime is so much better.

[DaveEP]

This is disapointing - although you may save me some money. While I have no intention of selling the prime, I have looked at the Tri-Elmar several times as a general walkabout lens.

 

Just how much is 'so much better' ? Can you post the comparison that you did ?

[stunsworth]

David, most of the reviews of the Tri-Elar have said that its weakest focal length is 28mm. Barrel distortion seems to be the main problem.

[cbretteville]

I would think barrel distortion is fairly straight forward to correct i PS.

[innerimager]

no experience with the Tri Elmar, but I really like the 28/2.8 ASPH. A great little lens, hard to beat.....Peter

[tom0511]

I compared a Tri-Elamr with 28/2.0asph, 35/1.4asphh and 50 cron.

Yes, specially on screen and specially at 28mm the prime(s) show more detail out of center, and a little more contrast on screen.

I printed to samples and in these prints in medium size differences were hard to tell.

So before you send your >Tri-Elanr back I recommend to shoot some more images, also at 35 and 50 , and do some prints.

I have had the Tri-Elmar only for few weeks but right now its my main walkaround lens, togehter with a 24/2.8.

cheers, tom

[harmsr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hans,

 

The Tri-Elmar also can do better than the new ASPH primes in bright/sunny & contrasty light. It renders differently and gives a little more DR / shadow detail.

 

If you will be shooting in contrasty daylight from f4 to f11, the Tri-Elmar is a very nice lens.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[geoffreyg]

Sean R. has a pretty good review of the Tri-E, and while a bit weak in barrel distortion at 28mm, it is a pretty useful lens. Here are some shots in a very cloudy day. I was taken aback at the ability in Iphoto to simply adjust the histogram and get some pretty decent smaller prints from JPG's. Then larger ones from raw files in PS.

 

I guess one question would be what print size do you want to aim for? If its not architetural (brick grid on a wall in elevation) and its up to 8x10 or more maybe, the Tri-E is pretty solid stuff.

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!

[tom0511]

IMO sometimes having the right lens/focal-length on the camera at the right time is more important than the last tiny bit of corner-sharpness or micro-contrast

 

Tri-Elamr at 28mm

 

Tri-E. at 50mm

[DaveEP]

IMO sometimes having the right lens/focal-length on the camera at the right time is more important than the last tiny bit of corner-sharpness or micro-contrast

 

These were my thoughts also. I read Sean's article with interest, and noted that he was happy with the lens, pretty much until he did his test shots - then he was glad he had shot 'real pictures' first, because they are what really matter.

 

Hmmm..... I wish I could try one for a day or two.... oh well....

[harmsr]

IMO sometimes having the right lens/focal-length on the camera at the right time is more important than the last tiny bit of corner-sharpness or micro-contrast

 

Tom,

 

Well said. That is one of the other reasons, I really like this lens for a reportage or fast response lens on a bright sunny day.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[marknorton]

I've had a Tri-Elmar since it was first introduced and it's a fine lens. Compromised on speed, yes, and image quality, slightly, but the choice of focal lengths is a big plus.

[t024484]

This is disapointing - although you may save me some money. While I have no intention of selling the prime, I have looked at the Tri-Elmar several times as a general walkabout lens.

 

Just how much is 'so much better' ? Can you post the comparison that you did ?

I only could compare the Tri in 28mm, because I had no other primes at my disposal but the Elmar 28/2.8.

I made quite a lot of pictures, 48 in total, of trees, faces and landscapes.

Pictures were made as DNG with both lenses at F4.0,5,6,and 8.0 in bright daylight.

The barrel distortion did not bother me at all, but the level of microdetail that was much better with the prime.

I made no printings, so on a printout the difference could have been less obvious.

[tom0511]

I only could compare the Tri in 28mm, because I had no other primes at my disposal but the Elmar 28/2.8.

I made quite a lot of pictures, 48 in total, of trees, faces and landscapes.

Pictures were made as DNG with both lenses at F4.0,5,6,and 8.0 in bright daylight.

The barrel distortion did not bother me at all, but the level of microdetail that was much better with the prime.

I made no printings, so on a printout the difference could have been less obvious.

 

This was the case when I did prints. After all I am not even sure anymore if I should have paid that much money for the 50/1.4asph and maybe instead just should get a CV50/1.5.

Minor difference on screen might nearly (or totally) disappear in prints, as long the prints are not very large.

I enclose one more Tri-ELmar image, where the somewhat lower contrast turned out to be a plus for the high contrasty light.

The more I use the Tri-Elmar the more I like it. It has kind of a "smooth" character with nice transition between the tones, while its notsupercrisp, images do still look sharp IMO.