citrus Posted October 17, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, where could this still be available and at which prices - I have been looking around for them, but could not find any at reasonable prices - are these already collector items as they seem to be above 4000 USD even for used ones without 6bit coding yet (this was the only one I found though and the seller might have over-ambitous price ideas - what do you think?. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Hi citrus, Take a look here Leica Tri-Elmar 1:4,0 / 28-35-50 mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pekem Posted October 17, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 17, 2007 It only needs two more people to want one at this time and for sure, one of them will judge $4000 to be the right price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M6J Posted October 17, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 17, 2007 Yep, a great lens at absolutely unreasonable prices due to collectors' interest after the lens was discontinued a while ago. It is not the best time to buy now. There are limits and MATE's prices are currently well over the limits IMHO. Noctilux's too. These prices will drop after some time without transactions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickko Posted October 17, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 17, 2007 Yeah, I bought mine for an inflated price - just under $3K at a very reputable seller. There's one on ebay now. Then I found out what they were selling for 18 months earlier, e.g. $2K or less. Ouch. And as I understand, they weren't even selling at that price. But, I love the lens. It's now permanently mounted to my RD1. ....Vick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 17, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 17, 2007 It's an ideal lens for the R-D1 because the lens matches the available frames in the viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted October 18, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 18, 2007 make sure you get ver II E49! Do not buy ver I, it has same optic but bigger and rangefinder couple doesn't work all time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted October 18, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have version 1. It is bigger but the rangefinder coupling is perfect on my M8. And the coupling was also perfect on my film M's. Only drawback is the max opening of f4 which also sometimes gives too much depth of field. maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted October 18, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 18, 2007 I have version 1. It is bigger but the rangefinder coupling is perfect on my M8. And the coupling was also perfect on my film M's. Only drawback is the max opening of f4 which also sometimes gives too much depth of field.maurice Sorry, my mistake. I had ver I and sold it, its needed additional twist to bring righ framlines, ver II perfect - always bring right frameline. BOTH ARE FINE WITH RANGEFINDER COUPLING. Sorry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted October 18, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 18, 2007 Another vote for version 1 working fine with the M8 - no problems with mine either. I did hear some stories regarding losing screws from the front elements of the newer lenses vs version 1. I'm sure someone here who's experienced this can comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted October 18, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 18, 2007 tofsla, You are right about the framelines problem with some cameras. On my M6 the 50/75 sometimes did not come up on the first try. On my MP there was no problem. I don't have the film cameras any more and am happy to say that on the M8 there is no frameline problem at all. maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted October 19, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 19, 2007 My version 1 TE brings up the correct frames on my M4, M5 and 2x M6es. Now if I could just get it to do the same on my R-D1... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted October 19, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 19, 2007 Look around. Having tested a Version 1 briefly tonight, my only comment is that the complaints about version 1 are vastly overblown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted October 19, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 19, 2007 Look around. Having tested a Version 1 briefly tonight, my only comment is that the complaints about version 1 are vastly overblown. Agreeing, I'd say they're probably very camera-specific, as in this particular camera works and this one doesn't. One advantage of v1 is that you kinda/sorta don't need a hood. V2 really does. I don't miss not having the DOF squiggles on the lens barrel, but YMMV. I'm using it on an R-D1 anyway so they wouldn't be right (same caveat for M8). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 20, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 20, 2007 The need to put an IR filter on the lens negates the benefit of the recessed front element in a V1 lens and the "official" lens hood solution - the same hood as the 21 and 24 Elmarits - is not very appealing because of the intrusion into the viewfinder. I'm on the look-out for a 55mm hood which will do the job. I've had the lens since 1999 and never had trouble with the frameline selection. It is mechanically complex though and I always handle it with care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
etrigan63 Posted October 20, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 20, 2007 Maybe John Milich can adapt his WATE Adaptor/Hood for Tri-Elmar use? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted October 20, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 20, 2007 Maybe John Milich can adapt his WATE Adaptor/Hood for Tri-Elmar use? It would need to be a completely different design as the WATE adapter only mounts the IR filter and provides a mount for the standard Leica hood with it. The challenge I've found is that the TriElmar (1st gen at least) really requires a thin filter - I use the B+W but that has no threads on the front to mount a screw-on hood. As Mark mentions, the advantages of the recessed lens assembly are lost when the IR filter is out front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 20, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 20, 2007 Leica produced a thin filter for the V1 lens to prevent vignetting when used with film. On an M8, with the narrower field of view, it's not an issue. I took the just the M8 and MATE with me yesterday - the closest Leica M gets to point and shoot convenience - and it proved absolutely fine. It's a great pity the lens isn't made any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted October 20, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 20, 2007 Not needing a wide UV/IR is interesting. I was advised to get a wide filter by a well respected Leica specialist, however, putting on a normal front threaded filter would open up the opportunity to use a screw on rubber hood. I agree about the point/shoot convenience. I have a combo of 2 M8's with WATE pretty much permanently on one (with frankenfinder), MATE on the other. I only carry the other faster lenses if I know that I'm going to need more low light or longer reach flexibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 20, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 20, 2007 Just to be clear, I didn't mean that no IR filter is required - it is - but because the angle of view is narrower, you do not need the thin filter to prevent vignetting which opens the possibility of using a 55mm threaded hood instead of the Leica effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted October 21, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 21, 2007 My hood for the v1 MATE arrived today and I noticed that it won't fit over the thin B+W filter as the ring matches the diameter of the front of the lens which means the slots for the lugs are blocked. Grrr.... Since I don't fancy grinding off the lugs or sloting the edge of the filter, I ordered a Leica E55 UV/IR today. Can anyone confirm that the hood will fit if the Leica filter is fitted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.