Einst_Stein Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1 Posted November 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can someone recommend photographers or photo sites with photos taken with Tr-elmar? Not flickr. I've seen it. I'm looking for more towards the profesional grade art galleries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Hi Einst_Stein, Take a look here Pgotographers and Gallery Sites of Tr-elmar. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted November 30, 2012 Share #2 Posted November 30, 2012 Try to get to the website of >>ROLF ADAM, Fotograf<<, should be easy to google. Lot´s of portraits there and other shots wit the TRI ELMAR, afaik. Best GEORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sorry, don´ t know how to link. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted November 30, 2012 Didn't find any taken by tri-elmar yet. Lots of Canon and Fuji stuffs though. The most impressive ones are usually by Summicron/50mm. Anyway, I found the tri-elmar a very impressive lens, but can't find many impressive picture yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted November 30, 2012 Share #4 Posted November 30, 2012 28-35-50 or 16-18-21? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted November 30, 2012 Share #5 Posted November 30, 2012 Ashwin Rao did a review some time back on the MATE. I believe he is also a forum member. Ashwin Rao's Blog - A life at shutter speed: Leica MATE review....check out Steve Huff's site! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted December 1, 2012 I'm talking about MATE, but my comment applies to WATE too. I've read many excellent Tri-Elmar reviews, Ashwin Rao and Erwin Putts included (good article but not many impressive pictures). I then ended up acquired two MATEs, sold the first one, the early version, in favor of the latest version and sold the second after realizing I'm using mostly the prime anyway. I believe eventually I'd find some good stuffs from the Tri-Elmar, but now I tend to believe more that it'd be very hard to find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted December 1, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I should add that when I read Thorsten Overgaard's two Leica 35-70mm zoom articles (f4.0 and f2.8), the pictures are really really pleasing, especially the one about the f2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wosim Posted December 6, 2012 Share #8 Posted December 6, 2012 Can someone recommend photographers or photo sites with photos taken with Tr-elmar?Not flickr. I've seen it. I'm looking for more towards the profesional grade art galleries. I use both, MATE and WATE, and love both. I guess, the MATE is my most used lens. Here you can find many shots with both lenses: https://sites.google.com/site/wosimsphotography/blog-1 https://sites.google.com/site/wosimsphotography/projects Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 7, 2012 Share #9 Posted December 7, 2012 Not flickr. I've seen it. I'm looking for more towards the profesional grade art galleries. There are many examples around, especially when reviews and blogs are by the same good photographer, and like the links given above. But there tends to be a point going from blog to art gallery where the importance of the lens becomes less important than the photograph. So for instance I have yet to see a painting in an art gallery where the artists notes what size brush he used, just as I have yet to see a photograph in an art gallery where the photographer notes the camera and lens combination. I suppose I would think they are clutching at straws if they did, because it would imply they are only aiming their work at fellow photographers, not the wider public for whom lens details mean nothing. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 7, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted December 7, 2012 The importance of a lens to a picture is far more than a brush to a painting. I'd say the same on the film or camera-sensor or the print paper than the paper to the paintings. If you want to say the importance of the photographer vs. the painter, I can agree. But this is not enough to justify the analog of the brush vs. the lens. I still think the impressive picture from the tri-elmar is rare, even after counting the sites recommended in the above posts. You should check out Thornston Overgaard or Dannyburk.com for comparison. There are a lot of web sites show excellent pictures with the camera or lens or film in the foot note. I see them as very adequate information. Do you really think a lens to the picture is the same as a brush to to the painting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 8, 2012 Share #11 Posted December 8, 2012 Do you really think a lens to the picture is the same as a brush to to the painting? Yes. And its annonimity in true fine art photography is there for all to see. Only in technical notes might you come across mention of the lens used, just as a painter may talk about the ways he puts paint on the canvas, perhaps with a brush, perhaps his fingers. But we all know that paintings don't come up for auction at Christies with a side note that Van Gogh used his little finger to paint in the crows, just as an Ansel Adams print is not exhibited at the Guggenheim with the lens type and focal length. Such details may appear in monographs and catalogues, but they are not the raison d'etre for the painting or the photograph existing. Perhaps you are confusing 'art' with Art, where outside of blogs/discussions 'art' photographers do indeed resort to lens details as a poor way of validating their efforts. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 8, 2012 Share #12 Posted December 8, 2012 I'm curious about this question. The OP has owned the lens, two of them, and sold them both. It would appear that he made his own mind up that the lens isn't for him, although says it was an impressive lens. OP - are you simply trying to validate your own reasons for selling? Can't find what you feel is an excellent image taken with a MATE therefore it's not worth having. As for flickr, many superb photographers post on there. I think you are after a gallery who are exhibiting, so that you can see an actual print? Forming opinions about lens quality from a small low res image on a computer screen is pointless. As Steve says, art galleries aren't usually interested in the equipment an artist uses, just the end result. I recall a thread some time ago where someone was arguing that a photo taken with a Leica should be more valuable than one taken with say a Canon lens! That is indeed rather like a gallery pricing a work of art more highly because it was made with this or that brand of paint or brush or knife. To put this in another context, when you go to a nicer than average restaurant for a special meal, do you check first what brand of cooking utensils the chef is using? I suggest instead that you look at the technical data and MTF charts for the MATE and compare those to other lenses if you want to establish if the lens is technically better or worse than another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted December 8, 2012 Share #13 Posted December 8, 2012 For me, my MATE is an excellent 'workhorse' lens used mainly for travel purposes. Its performance certainly matches any modern 35 or 50mm Leica prime lens, less so at 28. Over the past two years 17% of my 'keepers' (that is those still available for use) were taken with my MATE. Maximum aperture f/4 is only a drawback for interior and low-light use. Hence it is my lens of choice for outdoor walk-about photography. For serious applied photography, when time and lens-changing is not an issue, I would always opt for a prime lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted December 8, 2012 For me, my MATE is an excellent 'workhorse' lens used mainly for travel purposes. Its performance certainly matches any modern 35 or 50mm Leica prime lens, less so at 28. Over the past two years 17% of my 'keepers' (that is those still available for use) were taken with my MATE. Maximum aperture f/4 is only a drawback for interior and low-light use. Hence it is my lens of choice for outdoor walk-about photography. For serious applied photography, when time and lens-changing is not an issue, I would always opt for a prime lens. In this thread tri-elmar's spec is not questioned. Erwin Putts review is very convincing. but the bottom line is it must show it in the pictures. I looked around, but as far as I can find, there is rarely impressive pictures from the web. It's far less, almost none, compared to Other Leica 35 or 50mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted December 8, 2012 Share #15 Posted December 8, 2012 In this thread tri-elmar's spec is not questioned. Erwin Putts review is very convincing. but the bottom line is it must show it in the pictures. I looked around, but as far as I can find, there is rarely impressive pictures from the web. It's far less, almost none, compared to Other Leica 35 or 50mm. Maybe that is because those who use the lens with satisfaction are too busy to post pictures on websites. There is also another factor. Because of the real and prevalent risk of image theft, I rarely post anything of real value on websites. So your visual research could well yield little of relevance or value to you. It could be that you are looking for pictures which are made by good photographers rather than good lenses. Once again, there are good reasons why they do not publish their work on the internet. All I can say is that the MATE lens is fully capable of rendering professional quality images. Few modern Leica lenses stand out as markedly, or even moderately, superior to others in the same focal length at working lens apertures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted December 8, 2012 Maybe that is because those who use the lens with satisfaction are too busy to post pictures on websites. There is also another factor. Because of the real and prevalent risk of image theft, I rarely post anything of real value on websites. So your visual research could well yield little of relevance or value to you. It could be that you are looking for pictures which are made by good photographers rather than good lenses. Once again, there are good reasons why they do not publish their work on the internet. All I can say is that the MATE lens is fully capable of rendering professional quality images. Few modern Leica lenses stand out as markedly, or even moderately, superior to others in the same focal length at working lens apertures. May be, may be not. Choose whatever you want to believe. I didn't say nor ask why it is so rare compared to other lenses. I have my conclusion, but that is not the interests of my topic. I only asked recommendations for the sites with impressive pictures from tri-elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share #17 Posted December 8, 2012 I'm curious about this question. The OP has owned the lens, two of them, and sold them both. It would appear that he made his own mind up that the lens isn't for him, although says it was an impressive lens. OP - are you simply trying to validate your own reasons for selling? Can't find what you feel is an excellent image taken with a MATE therefore it's not worth having. As for flickr, many superb photographers post on there. I think you are after a gallery who are exhibiting, so that you can see an actual print? Forming opinions about lens quality from a small low res image on a computer screen is pointless. As Steve says, art galleries aren't usually interested in the equipment an artist uses, just the end result. I recall a thread some time ago where someone was arguing that a photo taken with a Leica should be more valuable than one taken with say a Canon lens! That is indeed rather like a gallery pricing a work of art more highly because it was made with this or that brand of paint or brush or knife. To put this in another context, when you go to a nicer than average restaurant for a special meal, do you check first what brand of cooking utensils the chef is using? I suggest instead that you look at the technical data and MTF charts for the MATE and compare those to other lenses if you want to establish if the lens is technically better or worse than another. The OP is very simple, where are the cyber galleries that show impressive pictures taken by MATE. What is impressive is subjective, use your own judge. There is not need to agree. Let's just share and enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share #18 Posted December 8, 2012 Yes. And its annonimity in true fine art photography is there for all to see. Only in technical notes might you come across mention of the lens used, just as a painter may talk about the ways he puts paint on the canvas, perhaps with a brush, perhaps his fingers. But we all know that paintings don't come up for auction at Christies with a side note that Van Gogh used his little finger to paint in the crows, just as an Ansel Adams print is not exhibited at the Guggenheim with the lens type and focal length. Such details may appear in monographs and catalogues, but they are not the raison d'etre for the painting or the photograph existing. Perhaps you are confusing 'art' with Art, where outside of blogs/discussions 'art' photographers do indeed resort to lens details as a poor way of validating their efforts. Steve There is no confusion about art vs. Art at all, whatever they mean to you. I did't say anything about art. In my mind, lens or film etc. to a picture is more like a piano or a violin to a music. It makes big difference, although the ultimate decision factor is the photographer or the musician(s) in charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share #19 Posted December 8, 2012 There is no confusion about art vs. Art at all, whatever they mean to you. I did't say anything about art. In my mind, lens or film etc. to a picture is more like a piano or a violin to a music. It makes big difference, although the ultimate decision factor is the photographer or the musician(s) in charge. By the way, I like you pictures. I like your medieval sessions, I'm also impressed by your "untitle" pictures of trees etc, ... the way you turn uninteresting objects to very interesting pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.