18mm or 16/18/21mm Tri Elmar?

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At a local dealer I have just tried out an 18mm (f3.8) Leica lens on my M8 and then tried the 16 / 18 / 21mm (f4) Tri Elmar lens. The 18mm costs £1949 plus £549 for the finder. The Tri Elmar costs £3299 with finder. ..(ie it costs £800 more but you get two extra focal lengths!)

 

I was very impressed by both lenses in terms of speed of focussing ...they both seem to be heavily geared with respect to the rangefinder mechanism compared to my older lenses. To my eyes at f8 there was no difference in quality of the images as viewed on a PC monitor.

 

Does anyone have an opinion about the Tri Elmar compared to the fixed focus?

 

My logic is that if there is no sacrifice of picture quality then a 16/18 / 21mm together with my older tri elmar (28 / 35 / 50 would be a great set for travelling.

[Advertisement]

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

[biglouis]

I'm a WATE user and am very impressed with it. However, the main drawback is the silly UV/IR filter arrangement. I've got round it with the step-up ring and massive 60-something filter but it is sub-optimal. You really need the Milich adpator and that plus filter will set you back another £200.

 

What I would seriously consider is finding a second hand one. In that case you may well find a second hand one plus frankenfinder for the £2000 mark (or close enough after haggling). That is a good buy (I got mine for that price s/h).

 

Personally, I hardly use the other focal lengths. As far as I am concerned it is a 16mm f4 lens. It is absolutely sharp and the colour draw from the lens is wonderful.

 

Just my two cents

 

LouisB

[stunsworth]

It's easier to fit a filter to the 18mm. If you are using it on an M8 you can use any 24mm viewfinder - Leica or Voigtlander.

 

I haven't used the 16/18/21 Tri-Elmar much, but I did borrow an 18mm for an afternoon.

 

Personally I'd go for the 18mm lens.

[Guest BigSplash]

I'm a WATE user and am very impressed with it. However, the main drawback is the silly UV/IR filter arrangement. I've got round it with the step-up ring and massive 60-something filter but it is sub-optimal. You really need the Milich adpator and that plus filter will set you back another £200.

 

What I would seriously consider is finding a second hand one. In that case you may well find a second hand one plus frankenfinder for the £2000 mark (or close enough after haggling). That is a good buy (I got mine for that price s/h).

 

Personally, I hardly use the other focal lengths. As far as I am concerned it is a 16mm f4 lens. It is absolutely sharp and the colour draw from the lens is wonderful.

 

Just my two cents

 

LouisB

 

Thanks for this......Basically this is what I am planning to do. I understood that the filter size was E 67+ and do not know the Milich adapter...I'll check it out on google.

 

Thanks

[Guest BigSplash]

It's easier to fit a filter to the 18mm. If you are using it on an M8 you can use any 24mm viewfinder - Leica or Voigtlander.

 

I haven't used the 16/18/21 Tri-Elmar much, but I did borrow an 18mm for an afternoon.

 

Personally I'd go for the 18mm lens.

 

I see the logic but if the optical quality of the Tri elmar is good then I get 16mm with the Tri Elmar.

 

Frankly I am amased that Leica do not introduce a fixed 16mm or 15mm lens that is super wide but not fish eye. I am sure that if I bought the 16/18/21 I would in practice use the 16mm only and then jump to 28mm (35mm on an M8) for ordinary wide angle shots and then 35mm (50mm on an M8) and 50mm (75mm on an M8) using the old tri Elmar.

 

Looking at it obectively the M4 used to offer 35mm, 50mm, 90mm ( and poorly 135mm)

and that was always regarded as the holy grail for most photography...supplement that with a 21mm is what I have historically always used successfully with film.

 

I believe the old Tri Elmar (now discontinued) offered most of the classical focal lengths what is missing is the super wide angle and that is what I am really looking for. It is surprising to me at least that Leica seems to have lost the plot.

[Mark Pope]

I had a similar dilemma. But today I ordered an ex-demo 18mm from Ffordes . They have a used tri-elmar for £1750, but I don't think it comes with the finder.

 

My decision was based on the uv/ir filter arrangements, cost (new) and the rather awkward user-interface - having to change the lens settings via the menus every time the focal length is changed would be a pain for me and I would almost certainly forget.

 

I'm fortunate in that I already have a finder - the Leica 21/24/28mm and a UV/IR filter, which I ordered as a freebie when I got my second M8 body.

 

Another reason for me is I will be able to use my Lee filters with the camera when I do landscapes - I just need the right adaptor and a step-up and step down ring when funds permit.

 

Another factor in my decision is that I also have CV 15 and 21mm lenses, so these focal lengths are covered, albeit not necessarily at the same quality level.

 

I must admit to a little waver though as not only do they have the WATE, but a couple of MATES...I like the idea of the MATE, but in the end I stuck to my guns.

[jlm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

for the WATE filter adapter, you can reach me at:

 

jm-at-milich-dot-com

[Guest malland]

Frank

 

You may also want to consider the Zeiss ZM18/f4 Distagon lens, which in the US costs only US$1,100 — I bought mine used at US$800 and use it with a Zeiss 25/28 finder, but you can also get a CV finder that costa about US$120.

 

It's an extremely good and well-built lens that I've been very happy with. It will be interesting to see Sean Reid's review comparing it to the Leica 18mm, which is about three times the price.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Scratching the Surface© - a set on Flickr

[wstotler]

Early in my decision process I looked at the 16/18/21 as an option (used) and decided against it based on how easy the 18mm/Leica finder would be to carry/use vs. carrying/using the WATE and a Frankenfinder. Complexity associated with getting a filter and dealing with coding was also an issue.

 

The WATE is cool, for sure, but seemed like overkill for what I wanted--a single replacement for my CV 15 and CV21--I didn't want both focal lengths and the 18mm fit right in there between them, eliminating the decision process of "should I shoot 15 or 21"? Just put the lens on there and shoot.

 

(A few days later I posted on the forum looking for image-quality comparison between the 18mm and the CV15, also. Got good feedback there--really helped me make a decision.)

 

There was also the factor of the 18mm being a new lens and coming with the associated Leica new lens warranty. (I'd hate to have to get the WATE serviced "early" during my period of ownership and pay for that.) Not a certainty, but a risk I just didn't want to run.

 

I've been very happy--and the lens has performed better than I expected: Super Elmar-M 18mm/3.8 - a set on Flickr

 

Good luck!

Will

[lars_bergquist]

Frank

 

You may also want to consider the Zeiss ZM18/f4 Distagon lens, which in the US costs only US$1,100 — I bought mine used at US$800 and use it with a Zeiss 25/28 finder, but you can also get a CV finder that costa about US$120.

 

It's an extremely good and well-built lens that I've been very happy with. It will be interesting to see Sean Reid's review comparing it to the Leica 18mm, which is about three times the price.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

 

I endorse Mitch's opinion of the Distagon. It is remarkably good, both on my M8 and on my M4-P. See to it that you get one with the new bayonet, which can be coded either by Sharpie, or easily milled for permanent coding by e.g. John Milich. I coded mine as a WATE, because the Super-Elmarit was not on the market then, but Super-Elmarit coding is of course to be preferred.

 

The old man from the Age of the Hologon

[wda]

At a local dealer I have just tried out an 18mm (f3.8) Leica lens on my M8 and then tried the 16 / 18 / 21mm (f4) Tri Elmar lens. The 18mm costs £1949 plus £549 for the finder. The Tri Elmar costs £3299 with finder. ..(ie it costs £800 more but you get two extra focal lengths!)

 

I was very impressed by both lenses in terms of speed of focussing ...they both seem to be heavily geared with respect to the rangefinder mechanism compared to my older lenses. To my eyes at f8 there was no difference in quality of the images as viewed on a PC monitor.

 

Does anyone have an opinion about the Tri Elmar compared to the fixed focus?

 

My logic is that if there is no sacrifice of picture quality then a 16/18 / 21mm together with my older tri elmar (28 / 35 / 50 would be a great set for travelling.

Frank if 18mm or thereabouts is your preferred focal length and you wish, eventually, to produce the largest possible enlarged prints, get the prime lens. I have the MATE lens which is excellent for travel and moderate enlargements. But if I need the potential for bigger reproductions, I would always choose a prime lens within its range (28-50-35). In my experience, the 28mm end of the TE is distinctly the poor relation. I cannot speak for the WATE, but multi-focal lenses unavoidably incorporate some compromises in design to achieve a remarkable multi-function goal.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank if 18mm or thereabouts is your preferred focal length and you wish, eventually, to produce the largest possible enlarged prints, get the prime lens. I have the MATE lens which is excellent for travel and moderate enlargements. But if I need the potential for bigger reproductions, I would always choose a prime lens within its range (28-50-35). In my experience, the 28mm end of the TE is distinctly the poor relation. I cannot speak for the WATE, but multi-focal lenses unavoidably incorporate some compromises in design to achieve a remarkable multi-function goal.

 

Your analysis makes sense to me....now if Leica introduced a 16mm fixed focus lens I guess that would change the position significantly as I am not sure that I would need three separate focal lengths of this super wide angle. I also take note that the tri elmar adds difficulties for the filter, and multi finder plus camera set up.

[michael_b_elmer]

Does anyone have an opinion about the Tri Elmar compared to the fixed focus?

 

My logic is that if there is no sacrifice of picture quality then a 16/18 / 21mm together with my older tri elmar (28 / 35 / 50 would be a great set for travelling.

 

I have the WATE, but I also have the 21 'Lux and the 18 SE, so in practice, the WATE serves as a 16 mm lens.

 

I generally prefer primes, not only because of their in general better image quality but also because of their better openings. F 3.8 or 4.0 is OK in sunny areas, but in the cold and dark North and in the evening and night and for interior shooting, they really aren't very useful. Furthermore, a prime lens' fixed focal length forces the photographer to concentrate on picture composition instead of on the choice of lens.

 

So for traveling in trhe summer, the WATE, the MATE and one or two primes (24 and 75 or 90 mm, preferably 'Lux or 'Cron) form an ideal combination.

 

For traveling under other circumstances, I prefer a combination of 21, 35 and 50 'Lux or 18 SE, 24 'Rit, 35 Lux and 75 'Cron.

[michali]

Frank- I spend most of my time traveling and have both Tri-Elmars 16-18-21 & 28-35-50 along with a pile of other primes. These 2 lenses are great when traveling.

 

Iv'e done several tests comparing the Tri-Elmars against the primes, IMHO not too much difference in picture quality, esp. from f5.6 onwards.

 

I bought a s/hand WATE in mint condition, I find myself using the 16mm & 18mm lengths more often. The filter arrangement is too bulky, so I don't bother with the filter, no issues yet.

 

Price aside for a moment, there's almost no difference between f3.8 on the 18mm & f4.0 on the WATE, so why not take advantage of the added focal lengths available on the WATE, if you can find a good s/hand one.

 

For super wide use I've bought the C/V 12mm Ultra wide Heliar, also use it without a filter. This lens is a little gem and reasonably priced at around GBP600-00.

 

BYTW I use both the WATE & 12mm without the finders, again too bulky and cumbersome. One gets used to composing very quickly, and with digital it's really no hassle to review, recompose and reshoot if you're not happy with the capture.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank- I spend most of my time traveling and have both Tri-Elmars 16-18-21 & 28-35-50 along with a pile of other primes. These 2 lenses are great when traveling.

 

Iv'e done several tests comparing the Tri-Elmars against the primes, IMHO not too much difference in picture quality, esp. from f5.6 onwards.

 

I bought a s/hand WATE in mint condition, I find myself using the 16mm & 18mm lengths more often. The filter arrangement is too bulky, so I don't bother with the filter, no issues yet.

 

Price aside for a moment, there's almost no difference between f3.8 on the 18mm & f4.0 on the WATE, so why not take advantage of the added focal lengths available on the WATE, if you can find a good s/hand one.

 

For super wide use I've bought the C/V 12mm Ultra wide Heliar, also use it without a filter. This lens is a little gem and reasonably priced at around GBP600-00.

 

BYTW I use both the WATE & 12mm without the finders, again too bulky and cumbersome. One gets used to composing very quickly, and with digital it's really no hassle to review, recompose and reshoot if you're not happy with the capture.

 

Thanks for this feedback.....much appreciated. I looked at your web site and am very impressed by the quality and breadth of subjects in your portfolio plus that you seem to have done this with Leica kit (plus the 300mm Zeiss telephoto and DSLR from Sony I guess for the distant shots)

 

I noticed that you too have a Visoflex and similar portfolio of lenses to myself...ie the older lenses except for the APO Telyt 135mm. I am interested to hear if you see significant differences between the older lenses and the APO Telyt or the Tri Elmar (28 / 35 / 50) in terms of ease of use and of course in picture results.

 

I was blown away by the new Tri Elmar (16 /18 / 21) and 18mm Super Elmar Asph in terms of the gearing of the rangefinder when focussing compared to the older lenses.

 

In terms of picture quality old lenses (pre asph.) compared to the new (Asph) lenses I remain open minded but would like to hear other peoples views.

[SJP]

..... I noticed that you too have a Visoflex and similar portfolio of lenses to myself...ie the older lenses except for the APO Telyt 135mm. I am interested to hear if you see significant differences between the older lenses and the APO Telyt or the Tri Elmar (28 / 35 / 50) in terms of ease of use and of course in picture results. .....

 

I am not quite sure what the question is but I can recommend the MATE (T-E 28/50/35 ASPH version 2) as a general purpose daytime lens. According to Erwin Puts it is comparable to the primes in terms of image quality. I tend to agree, but there are some disadvantages: relatively large/heavy, slow at f/4, somewhat sensitive mechanically (it is a very complicated lens), some distortion at 28mm, and last but not least somewhat prone to flare/low contrast (which can be dealt with in PP e.g. with C1). My favorite setting is @ 50 mm by a wide margin.

 

Some examples here: Flickr: SJP-DH's stuff tagged with trielmar

[Guest BigSplash]

I am not quite sure what the question is but I can recommend the MATE (T-E 28/50/35 ASPH version 2) as a general purpose daytime lens. According to Erwin Puts it is comparable to the primes in terms of image quality. I tend to agree, but there are some disadvantages: relatively large/heavy, slow at f/4, somewhat sensitive mechanically (it is a very complicated lens), some distortion at 28mm, and last but not least somewhat prone to flare/low contrast (which can be dealt with in PP e.g. with C1). My favorite setting is @ 50 mm by a wide margin.

 

Some examples here: Flickr: SJP-DH's stuff tagged with trielmar

 

Stephen I have the Tri Elmar (Version 2) and I think that it is fantastic to use and the picture quality is overall excellent. I accept the comments that you make but have not seen these issues. What I especially like is that I can effectively on an M8 shoot at 35mm (ie wide angle shots), 50mm (standard lens) and 75mm (portraits typically) without carrying three lenses.

 

My question is more in the direction of :

> "Why would I buy a modern Asph. lens or an APO?"

> "I have a bunch of old lenses (21mm (f3.8), 35mm (f2), 50mm (f2), 50mm (f1), 75mm ( f1.4) 90mm (f2).. all of which are not marked as ASPH."....what would I gain by moving to newer ASPH or APO lenses?

 

I can see that I need a super wide angle due to the crop factor of the M8 that does not give me what the 21m used to provide on the M6.....so 18mm looks like a good bet according to the thread above.

However what other lenses should I upgrade, and why ..... is my question now.

[michali]

I noticed that you too have a Visoflex and similar portfolio of lenses to myself...ie the older lenses except for the APO Telyt 135mm. I am interested to hear if you see significant differences between the older lenses and the APO Telyt or the Tri Elmar (28 / 35 / 50) in terms of ease of use and of course in picture results.

 

Frank thanks for visiting my site and for your feedback. In terms of quality of the older lenses (the pre-mid 1960's which I have) the differences I've found are that they're more prone to flaring and the colours are definitely more muted, in some cases sort of slightly washed out, especially when shooting in brighter light. I guess this is due to the lens coatings or lack thereof. With the exception of the VISO of course, all handle with great ease and exceptionally well.

 

Over time I've added the newer ASPH lenses to the arsenal, there's no question they deliver overall better results and quality.

 

Having said that, here are 2 pics: #1 taken with a 1954 50mm f2 Summicron & #2 taken with the latest 28mm f2 Summicron ASPH, can you really see a huge difference?

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]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mustafasoleiman]

Frank thanks for visiting my site and for your feedback. In terms of quality of the older lenses (the pre-mid 1960's which I have) the differences I've found are that they're more prone to flaring and the colours are definitely more muted, in some cases sort of slightly washed out, especially when shooting in brighter light. I guess this is due to the lens coatings or lack thereof. With the exception of the VISO of course, all handle with great ease and exceptionally well.

 

Over time I've added the newer ASPH lenses to the arsenal, there's no question they deliver overall better results and quality.

 

Having said that, here are 2 pics: #1 taken with a 1954 50mm f2 Summicron & #2 taken with the latest 28mm f2 Summicron ASPH, can you really see a huge difference?

 

The difference is that the cigar shows you are a bit slow in changing lenses... thank god it's a bayonet... if you were using a screw mount there would be no cigar left.

[markgay]

I bought the WATE for the Finder and kept the lens.

 

I find in landscape settings or on holiday it's the only lens I use.