Mark2007 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the 28-35-50 is work of focal lenght. so the lens is apporpriate for full frame. why the lens discontinue, 1) More expensive 2) Low quality or low light 3) Difficult to use. etc. do you know about the lens. : ) thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi Mark2007, Take a look here why tri-elmar 28-35-50 Discontinue?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
RobertW Posted September 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2009 There have been a few reasons quoted here. The one I remember relates to the difficulty in procuring a consistent high quality level of glass for the lens. Best Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted September 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2009 I too heard that not being able to source the correct glass anymore was the reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted September 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2009 Two reasons were quoted in 2007 when they axed it: * They ran out of the glass used for the front element * The mount is just too complex and expensive to make - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 11, 2009 If you're thinking of buying one now might be the time. They aren't exactly common on the used market but I'll put money on the fact that they'll now become a LOT more desirable again on the 'other' digital M ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted September 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 11, 2009 If you're thinking of buying one now might be the time. They aren't exactly common on the used market but I'll put money on the fact that they'll now become a LOT more desirable again on the 'other' digital M ... Yup. Got myself one last week on the bay. Just make sure it's mechanically fine, as this is a fairly complex lens - eg, setting aperture at f/4 on 50mm may occasionally require some fiddling (this seems to be a known issue). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted September 11, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes I"m looking forward to using mine on the M9 - eventually! When I got mine the frame selection at 50mm was a bit dodgy, but after I sent it to Malcolm Taylor (highly recommended) for coding it has come back adjusted perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 11, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 11, 2009 I think the 28-35-50 is work of focal lenght. so the lens is apporpriate for full frame. why the lens discontinue, 1) More expensive 2) Low quality or low light 3) Difficult to use. etc. do you know about the lens. : ) thanks Mark, go for the second version if given a choice. Focal length settings are more positive and there are depth of field markings on the barrel. For practical photography on the move, it takes some beating for the sheer convenience of no lens changing and consequent contamination of the sensor. I was poised to part with mine, but realized my error in time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted September 11, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 11, 2009 I think you are absolutely right, although I have to say that I really enjoy the ~66mm effect when using the 3E on my M8. If you're thinking of buying one now might be the time. They aren't exactly common on the used market but I'll put money on the fact that they'll now become a LOT more desirable again on the 'other' digital M ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted September 11, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 11, 2009 YMMV, I think. I decided to go with a v1 when I bought one (used) because the DOF lines were visually crazy and I found a v1 that worked perfectly. I've had my flange coded since I bought it - it's nice having the exif data right (no more random notes to make and lose!). Mark, go for the second version if given a choice. Focal length settings are more positive and there are depth of field markings on the barrel. For practical photography on the move, it takes some beating for the sheer convenience of no lens changing and consequent contamination of the sensor. I was poised to part with mine, but realized my error in time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 11, 2009 YMMV, I think. I've had my flange coded since I bought it - it's nice having the exif data right (no more random notes to make and lose!). Yes, I had mine coded too; before that I noticed marked cyan discoloration in the left corner and margin, particularly at the 28mm setting, less so with the 50mm setting. Coding definitely cured that phenomenon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted September 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 11, 2009 I have a first version and like it better....it has a built-in lens hood, and that makes it better for me - less stuff in the bag and less to do to take it on and off. Coding it was also a good thing. I think some of the first editions had sloppy focal length changing mechanisms, but mine seems fine - maybe something they changed part way through, before the second edition? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 11, 2009 I have a first version and like it better....it has a built-in lens hood I thought it used the lens hood from the 24mm Elmarit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted September 12, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 12, 2009 second edition takes a hood, first edition lens is recessed into the barrel and doesn't need one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted September 12, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 12, 2009 I just got one 2 months ago from the bay.. I just love it. Will work nice on that eventual M9. Yes 2nd version is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 12, 2009 It's a great lens! My namegiver. The other two I kept being 1.4/24 and 1.4/50 Asph. It's fine on film, so it should be very good on the M9, too. v2 in mint condition is gradually returning to the last list price on the second hand market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 12, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 12, 2009 second edition takes a hood, first edition lens is recessed into the barrel and doesn't need one I think both versions claimed not to need a hood. Both have the same shallow inset. However lens hoods were available for both versions. I tried without but was glad to buy a hood eventually which adds to protection of the front element and/or uv/IR filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted September 14, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 14, 2009 I think this is a great lens, having bought one of the originals. I use this, together with a WATE and M8 for traveling. The combination covers 99.9% of the images I want and is a 'small' outfit. ________________________ Regards, Tom Photography by Tom Lane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 14, 2009 It was interested watching the Reichmann video of the Stephan Daniel interview that SD seemed to be hinting that Leica were at least working on some form of Tri Elmar replacement. (or 'trying' to produce a successor which was a laughing point in the video) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielt Posted September 14, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 14, 2009 I have both versions. The first version does not need hood. The second version requires hood (part number 12450) M9 + TRI-ELMAR first version + Leica UV filter works without problems. M9 + TRIELMAR second version + Leica UV filter causes vignetting at 28 mm (NOT 35 and 50 mm) On the M9 you need to mount a SLIM filter type Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.