Argument against the tri-elmar.

[Scott Root]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bet a person would get a higher quality print from shooting a shot with the increadible 28 Summicron Asph and cropping later that would have been better suited for a 35mm FOV shot on the 35mm setting on the tri-elmar. If this is the case, it would make the tri-elmar a lens suitable for an older style of photography that required greater emphasis on getting the FOV narrowed when taking the picture to gain resoution. If this is the case, it makes me disinclined to purcahse a tri-elmar that I had considered and leads me to resort to shooting only with the 28 Summicron and my 50 Summicron and just crop my shots taken with the 28 summicron Asph that should have been shot with a 35 FOV. Any one have any comment or experience with this?

[tom0511]

I compared the lenses (just some quick comparisons) and while I could see some slight differences between the TE and the 28asph and 35asph on screen (TE little less contrast, little less micro detail and sharpness) I could NOT see a difference in 20x30cm prints.

At 50mm I couldnt see any difference compared to my 50cron.

But this were only a few comparison shots, I am sure it was not a scientific test.

 

I dont see how a cropped shot from a 28asph could deliever the detail as a shot with the TE at 35mm, as long as you dont print very very small.

The other thing is framing - which would be just gessing when shooting a 28mm prime with the idea to crop later.

 

Today I like the character of the TE with a little less contrast quit a bit and it has become my most used lens. The primes I often only use for low light, or the 50 or longer primes when I want really shallow DOF.

 

Cheers, Tom

[jayproth]

I love the tri-elmar because of its portability and adaptability for travel situations When I go out of town, I only take the tri-elmar and a 35mm lux for indoor shots.

 

Of course, not being a professional photographer, I cannot give input in terms of any difference in print quality between the tri-elmar and the 28mm cron!

 

But if I was to only have one lens for travel, (which is why I bought an M8 anyways), then it would be the tri-elmar.

[frc]

A prime is optimised for its focal length so theoreticrly "better" than a muli focal one.

However, owning the 3-e, lux 35 asph and the cron 50 I never skipped the 3-e because I thought it might lack quality, the choice is made with the application in mind.

Perhaps it's slightly lesser contrast and micro detail capabilities limit the maximum size of print, but this is in direct comparison to a prime used at the same focal length.

If a cropped 28 prime shot would be better than a 35 shot with the 3-e the lens would not be in existence and not being worth the name Laica.

Use it for its ease of use ( no frequent lens changing in the field ) and its fingerprint, it is a beautiful and practical lens.

 

For more sharpness, use the tripod;-)

[Bavaricus]

For more sharpness, use the tripod;-)

 

You are SO right!

[j. borger]

if you wan more or less in the picture ........ you could also "zoom with your feet" when using a prime: back up or get closer ....

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me put it this way: In handheld shooting, you will not notice any difference in optical performance between the Tri-Elmar and the respective primes. To exploit whatever slight differences there may be, you would need to do a comparison with the camera on a tripod. Even the slightly less contrast of the Tri-Elmar that some have mentioned is relative, there may be slightly less contrast relative to the prime lenses, but the Tri-Elmar is still a very contrasty lens!

 

All in all, for practical purposes the Tri-Elmar's only limitation is speed. It was my first lens for my M6TTL at the time (have since then switched to M7), and I still like and use it a lot.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[tom0511]

if you wan more or less in the picture ........ you could also "zoom with your feet" when using a prime: back up or get closer ....

 

If it is just for framing you might be able to use your feet. If it is for the "look" of the image, a 28mm portrait looks quit different compared to a 50mm portrait and the same is true for other subjects.

[j. borger]

If it is just for framing you might be able to use your feet. If it is for the "look" of the image, a 28mm portrait looks quit different compared to a 50mm portrait and the same is true for other subjects.

That's true Thomas ...... but it's the same with cropping as the poster suggested ... that does not give you a 35mm look either ...... but a cropped 28 look!

That's also why the 50mm on the M8 still gives a (cropped) 50mm look instead of a short tele-look!

[lars_bergquist]

Shooting everything with a 28 mm lens and then cropping out smaller images from the big picture is a bad idea. Going from 28 to 70 mm would reduce the pixels available from 10.5 million to a quarter of that number, i.e. less than 3 megapixels. That is, you simply dump seventyfive percent of the resolution, detail, information, everything.

 

If that had been a viable option in digital, it would have been one on film too. Believe me (after half a century in wet darkrooms), had it been, then there would never have existed any real need for interchangeable optics. The Leica II would never have appeared! And, nobody would want a camera with more than 3 gigapixels either ...

 

The old man from the Age of Tri-X

[misha]

for me, its not just about cropping but also framelines. this reminds me of an argument someone had for never shooting in b/w mode (because you can always edit in PS). well, most people probably cant visualize b/w v.well looking at a color raw hence having a b/w review option is quite useful, just like the proper framelines.

slightly off topic, but i have a TE and selling it (rangefinderforum or ebay) for mainly two reasons: speed and size (will probably go with a prime 35 cron). otherwise, i have not noticed any serious arguments against it.

[tom0511]

That's true Thomas ...... but it's the same with cropping as the poster suggested ... that does not give you a 35mm look either ...... but a cropped 28 look!

That's also why the 50mm on the M8 still gives a (cropped) 50mm look instead of a short tele-look!

 

I tend to disagree.

a 35 on the M8 will give you the same perspective as a 50mm on full frame or a 80mm in medium format.

The only difference you will see is the behaviour of DOF.

If you crop a 35mm M8 image and shoot from same distance with a 50mm image they will look identical IMO.

[jaapv]

Maybe I'm just plumb photograpically stupid, but many is the time I have to look at exif to see whether I used a 35 or 50 for instance.....

[luigi bertolotti]

I tend to disagree.

a 35 on the M8 will give you the same perspective as a 50mm on full frame or a 80mm in medium format.

The only difference you will see is the behaviour of DOF.

If you crop a 35mm M8 image and shoot from same distance with a 50mm image they will look identical IMO.

 

... and me too tend to disagree...

a 35 on the M8 gives a different (slightly...) perspective than a 50 on a 24x36

 

"If you crop a 35mm M8 image and shoot from same distance with a 50mm image they will look identical " : that is true for a certain subject at a certain distance; imagine (or try, it's very easy a shot) 2 persons standings , sided, one at 5 mtr the other at 10 mtr: shot with 35 and then with 50, and crop the 35 pic : you can obtain the, say, front person, to have the same height, but the rear person shall be a little shorter in the 35 pic, and vice versa if you crop and make the rear persons have the same height. Very easy to verify... an almost extreme proof of this, in our "Leica world" is with the V-Lux: it has a strong tele zoom that equals IN ENLARGMENT a 430mm lens on a 24x36 : try to shoot with V-Lux at this full extended focal: perspective is by far not similar to a 400 Telyt on Leica M... and besides this there is also the difference in DOF you correctly quote

[Woody Campbell]

. . . I could NOT see a difference in 20x30cm prints.

. . .

Cheers, Tom

 

I agree with Tom on this. I have both the TE and the 28 f2.0 ASP. I real prints I don't notice that the TE delivers less "image quality" at 28 than the prime, except that the TE at 28 has more pincushon distortion (about 3.5% correction on the lens correction filter in PS) than the prime (which is essentially free from distortion). At 35 and 50 the TE is essentially distortion free.

[DaveEP]

Just as I talked myself out of the TE (mainly for travel), you guys have to bring it up again.... Damn!

[sam3k]

I tend to disagree.

a 35 on the M8 will give you the same perspective as a 50mm on full frame or a 80mm in medium format.

The only difference you will see is the behaviour of DOF.

If you crop a 35mm M8 image and shoot from same distance with a 50mm image they will look identical IMO.

 

You are correct, perspective is a function of distance, NOT of focal length.

[bill vann]

if i pixel peep i might criticize the tri elmar, but it spends the most time on my M8 and no one has ever noticed a difference in my prints.

 

is there some difference, could be, but i prefer the last pre-asph of the asph 35 cron, have a CV 28, last generation 50 cron having replace asphs and current version, also love the 75 lux and last 90mm cron.

 

love the 21 asph, though.

 

the point?

 

i guess i look at pictures and whether i'm shooting, or ruminating and pixel peeping.

 

my 2 cents

 

bill vann

[grober]

I loved everything about the 2nd version T-E except its speed. Of course, a faster lens, even by only one stop, may have been technically possible but surely would have been too heavy and way too spendy.

 

Loved it but sold it only because of the speed issue.

 

-g

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear