Tri-Elmar on Leica SL

[tompoes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the moment i have the 24-90 zoom for the SL but considering to trade this lens in for the Tri Elmar 16-18-21.

Question: how does this Tri Elmar perform on the SL ???
The 24-90 is a great lens but the weight is a problem for me thats why i consider a switch to the Tri-Elmar. 

[ferdinand]

The Tri Elmar 16-18-21 performes very, very good with the SL. 

 

The photos in the album 'Tempelhof' were all done with the Tri Elmar (most of them with 16mm) and the photo attached also (21mm)

 

           Flughafen Tempelhof 2016 16 Fotos · 82 Aufrufe                                           

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest]

At the moment i have the 24-90 zoom for the SL but considering to trade this lens in for the Tri Elmar 16-18-21.

Question: how does this Tri Elmar perform on the SL ???

The 24-90 is a great lens but the weight is a problem for me thats why i consider a switch to the Tri-Elmar. 

 

But the zoom range is completely different. Extreme wide to wide vs wide-telephoto.  I do agree with the weight and bulk, you cannot be inconspicious with that as an outfit. This is why I have the SL and mostly M lenses.

[jonoslack]

I think they make a perfect pair (24-90 and WATE)

[ramarren]

I responded to your similar query on DPReview. 

As Jono says, the two lenses make an excellent pair.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I agree with the others. While the WATE is a really fabulous lens, it's not a lens I could see as my everyday walk around lens. It's vastly different to the 24-90 in angle of view.

 

I think a fast 50 or 35mm would be a wiser choice. The Leica lenses are obviously brilliant but Voigtlander and Zeiss make excellent 35 and 50mm M mount lenses you could use on your SL with great results and they're cheap enough that you can keep the 24-90 for those times when the convenience of a zoom outweighs the need for a smaller system. A good used CV50mm 1.5 Nokton M is a brilliant lens for about $500 in perfect preowned condition.

 

Gordon

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with the others. While the WATE is a really fabulous lens, it's not a lens I could see as my everyday walk around lens. It's vastly different to the 24-90 in angle of view.

 

I think a fast 50 or 35mm would be a wiser choice. The Leica lenses are obviously brilliant but Voigtlander and Zeiss make excellent 35 and 50mm M mount lenses you could use on your SL with great results and they're cheap enough that you can keep the 24-90 for those times when the convenience of a zoom outweighs the need for a smaller system. A good used CV50mm 1.5 Nokton M is a brilliant lens for about $500 in perfect preowned condition.

 

Gordon

 

I'd agree Gordon that swapping the 24-90 is a bad idea . . . . . but if he's keeping the 24-90 then he probably doesn't need a 35 or 50

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'd agree Gordon that swapping the 24-90 is a bad idea . . . . . but if he's keeping the 24-90 then he probably doesn't need a 35 or 50

 

 

That depends on whether the zoom is ALWAYS too big or SOMETIMES he would like a small light lens for the day. Maybe the OP really wants to own just one lens for his SL. Maybe he's looking outside that limitation. Ultimately he/she is the only one who can make that choice. All I can do, from behind a keyboard, is think about what I might do in that circumstance and offer that as an alternative. It's possible the OP has decided that he'd prefer to be shooting in the 16-21mm range. Unlikely but possible.

 

I will choose whether to take the 24-90 or leave it at home and shoot with a small prime. I don't think that means I should sell the zoom because in some circumstances I prefer the smaller lens. Sometimes i want/need the convenience of the zoom. Sometimes I want/need the size and freedom of a small single lens.

 

I know a bunch of photographers that own both a standard zoom and a fast 50. I do. I own several 50's. Sometimes I go out with a body and a prime. Sometimes with a zoom. Sometimes with both. Sometimes I leave them all at home and just take a Sony RX100III. Personally, I would never just have a standard zoom without a fast 50, which I feel complement each other very well. But that's just me and I'm a bit strange.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

I'd agree Gordon that swapping the 24-90 is a bad idea . . . . . but if he's keeping the 24-90 then he probably doesn't need a 35 or 50

 

Well Jono ...  

 

I'm much more likely on a daily basis to carry two R primes (24+50, 35+90, 24+60, 50+180, etc) than to carry the big zoom around. To me, it just makes for a much handier kit, the SL24-90 is simply too bulky to carry all the time for the kind of shooting I prefer to do. On my last trip, for instance, I carried the WATE plus 'Lux-R 50 and 'Cron-R 90: an almost perfect travel kit.

 

But I keep (and use) the SL24-90 as well because there are times when it's convenient to have all the functionality it offers, and its performance is outstanding. 

[tompoes]

Thanks for the comments and got a confirmation that the Tri Elmar 16-18-21 works fine on the Leica SL. However, the general consensus is to keep the 24-90 as this is a highly versatile lens.
I do have the SEM 21mm, the 35mm lux, the 50mm lux and the T 11-23. If i look at my exif data then 80 % is within the 21-35 mm focal length. The T 11-23 comes in very handy and is good enough for book prints and prints up to A3 size.
Since i have the T 11-23 i see a fair amount of pictures in the 16-18 mm range. 
Most of the time i take the SL with 1 or 2 primes or take the Q. The 24-90 is in theory very practical in range but gets less and less use because of its weight.
My type of photography relates mostly to documentary, street and urban type of pictures. 
What to do?? The swap with the Tri Elmar is now on hold as i can't make up my mind, currently i have a nice spread of focal lengths with the 24-90 gathering some dust.

[scott kirkpatrick]

My personal preference is to check the battery on one camera and install one lens, then go out and see what I can see that way.  And vary the kit from one day to the next.  But if I have an event or a subject in mind and little control over where I can be and where it will happen, zooms are sure nice to have. I shot a few hundred frames at a show last night, picked out a seat with good sight lines, and shot all but the curtain calls with an 80 Summilux, whose rendering I love.  Wide angle shooting is harder to plan ahead, since it often involves working in pretty confined spaces.  The WATE, at f/4, or zooms like the Olympus 7-14/2.8 are certainly nice solutions.  I kinda like my Super Elmarit-R 15 and SEM-M 21, but since I often stop them down to get a little more sharpness, the WATE may be just as good a solution.  

 

scott

[ramarren]

Thanks for the comments and got a confirmation that the Tri Elmar 16-18-21 works fine on the Leica SL. However, the general consensus is to keep the 24-90 as this is a highly versatile lens.

I do have the SEM 21mm, the 35mm lux, the 50mm lux and the T 11-23. If i look at my exif data then 80 % is within the 21-35 mm focal length. The T 11-23 comes in very handy and is good enough for book prints and prints up to A3 size.

Since i have the T 11-23 i see a fair amount of pictures in the 16-18 mm range. 

Most of the time i take the SL with 1 or 2 primes or take the Q. The 24-90 is in theory very practical in range but gets less and less use because of its weight.

My type of photography relates mostly to documentary, street and urban type of pictures. 

What to do?? The swap with the Tri Elmar is now on hold as i can't make up my mind, currently i have a nice spread of focal lengths with the 24-90 gathering some dust.

 

 

(bolded) If that's with a T lens, then that 16-18mm focal length range (APS-C format) translates to 24-28mm on FF format. Which is what I would expect ... 16-18mm is a very very wide FoV on FF, and generally not the major center of most folks' usage. There are exceptions, of course. But that also seems about right because you like to shoot documentary, street, and urban types of photographs, for which most shooters will tend to the 24-35mm FoV on FF range over time. 

 

My recommendation is simple: the WATE is an exceptional lens, and so is the SL24-90.

• Hold onto the dedicated zoom as it's the only way to get to use ALL of the SL's features, even if you only use it occasionally.
• Put your desire for the WATE on hold for a bit and shoot a lot more with the 21mm—that will at least let you know if 21 and wider focal lengths are going to be that useful to you. 
• Fit the 'Lux 50 on, shoot with it exclusively for a while then (say 1000-2000 exposures), to see whether you want wider or longer, and how often. 
• Similarly, after you're done with that, fit the SL24-90 and use it exclusively for a while (another 1000-2000 exposures). Keep an open mind about the size and weight ... just use it. Don't switch off to the other lenses. At the end of that, look at what focal lengths you used a lot with it, and try to remember what the camera felt like with the 50mm on it. Swap lenses and see if it meets what you thought. 

Once you have that data in your head, making a decision on the WATE should be easier. If the word is "go for it", just wait until you can afford it and add to the kit. Or sell the SL24-90 if you simply can't get on with it and slide that money into the WATE. 

 

I financed my WATE by realizing that I almost never used the Elmar-M 24mm ... I knew I wanted wider. Trading that cut the price down to something my bank account could withstand. I simply couldn't see letting go of my only dedicated lens for the SL that opens up all of its functional capabilities, even if I only rarely use it. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by ramarren

[tompoes]

Thanks Ramarren,

Decided to keep the 24-90 mm for the time being and explore the 16-21 mm range with the T 11-23 and the 21 mm SEM. The 50 mm Lux will remain until i find a place for it.
Your proposed strategy makes sense to me and will pursue it further.

[xjr]

SL and M-lenses