jonoslack Posted November 23, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 23, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi There I'm not a long time RF user - but I've fallen deeply in love - first with an M6TTL, then the R-D1 and now my M8. I shoot mostly landscape and nature details, (you can see my website in the signature). Last weekend shooting the dawn at Southwold I was forever changing between my CV Ultron 28mm and my 50mm 'cron. Nothing was shot wider than f4 - which set me thinking. I've had a great offer for a new (but long in stock) tri-elmar - it's a 11625 (the newer model), and I've reserved it as it seems to me to be right up my street. So - for trekking and travelling it seems that this will be a godsend (I also have the 15mm CV and a 90mm elmarit). So, a couple of questions 1. Will I be sacrificing image quality at the edges or the middle 2. Will I be able to focus as closely as on my 50mm 'cron 3. Is This a Good Idea! Thanks in advance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Should I get a tri-elmar for my M8? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted November 23, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 23, 2006 2. Will I be able to focus as closely as on my 50mm 'cron No. Tri-Elmar has a closest focussing distance of 1m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 23, 2006 Share #3 Posted November 23, 2006 1. I doubt it. The Tri-Elmar has a really good reputation. Hopefully someone here has personal experience and can put this one out of your mind for good. 3. It sounds like it, but I guess 1. is the clincher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
canlogic Posted November 23, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 23, 2006 I know Sean has a review of it on his site, done on a RD1 I think. I think he said it was an excellent lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted November 23, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 23, 2006 Jono, I've looked at your photos over the years and they're very nice indeed. I remember thinking at one time that you were poised for a brilliant career as a poultry photogapher. 8-) If you plan to continue as you've done, then I think you'd like the Tri-elmar. I have one, and within its range, it seems to give up almost nothing; it's very sharp. Erwin Puts also has good things to say about it, including the claim that it is optically superior to many of the lenses it replaces. See here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/trielmar.html Mr. Puts is reliable on lenses, I believe. However, I took one to Paris with my M7, thinking to save weight, and I found that f4 just wasn't enough for late afternoon in the deeper streets; if you want to shoot late afternoon in wooded areas, or in shadowed river valleys, you might find the same problem, depending on your opinions of the M8's qualities at higher ISOs. I should point out that you can buy older Leica lenses at a much lower cost than a new Tri-elmar --- you could probably get three in the same focal lengths for less than the price of one TE -- and that some of those very old (yet relatively fast) lenses might work quite well for your particular kind of landscape. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2006 Author Share #6 Posted November 23, 2006 No. Tri-Elmar has a closest focussing distance of 1m. Hi Ian thanks for that - I should have been able to sort it out for myself! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted November 23, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1. I doubt it. The Tri-Elmar has a really good reputation. Hopefully someone here has personal experience and can put this one out of your mind for good. 3. It sounds like it, but I guess 1. is the clincher. Thanks Carsten - I'm dithering a little - but the idea of having both tri-elmars on the M8 is very attractive . .. but rather expensive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2006 Author Share #8 Posted November 23, 2006 I know Sean has a review of it on his site, done on a RD1 I think. I think he said it was an excellent lens. Hi Tim Thanks for this I hadn't realised - but I'm a 'victim' of Sean and like his reviews - I'll go find it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2006 Author Share #9 Posted November 23, 2006 Jono, However, I took one to Paris with my M7, thinking to save weight, and I found that f4 just wasn't enough for late afternoon in the deeper streets; if you want to shoot late afternoon in wooded areas, or in shadowed river valleys, you might find the same problem, depending on your opinions of the M8's qualities at higher ISOs. I should point out that you can buy older Leica lenses at a much lower cost than a new Tri-elmar --- you could probably get three in the same focal lengths for less than the price of one TE -- and that some of those very old (yet relatively fast) lenses might work quite well for your particular kind of landscape. JC Thank you John - I've got some older lenses (I've been quite restrained so far). This is quite a good deal for a new lens though, which makes it tempting. I guess you're right about street shooting, but I was thinking of taking a fast 50mm along for such moments. Anyway - good advice - I'm still thinking! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2006 Share #10 Posted November 23, 2006 Thank you John - I've got some older lenses (I've been quite restrained so far). This is quite a good deal for a new lens though, which makes it tempting. I guess you're right about street shooting, but I was thinking of taking a fast 50mm along for such moments. Anyway - good advice - I'm still thinking! On the other hand, f 4.0 at 1250 ISO (1600 effective, Sean explained somewhere) you can get into some pretty murky situations with your camera. It is the ideal lightweight kit with the M8 imho. The lens is as good as any pre-asph lens-maybe even better on the M8, from the few shots I took with it up till now.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted November 23, 2006 Share #11 Posted November 23, 2006 John, The Tri-elmar is a good lens and very convenient. (But.......) It renders a little more like the non-ASPH primes, in that it has slighty less micro contrast and sharpness when compared to the new ASPH primes. In the bright & contrasty AZ sun, this often works well. In lower light the f4 is insufficient for me. The other disadvantages of f4 (that you can not compensate for with higher ISO) is the deeper depth of field, in which you can not isolate a subject as you can at 1.4, 2.0, or even 2.8. I do own the lens and several of the new primes. My $.02 is that it is a great lens for travel and bright light, but always to be accompanied by a fast prime in the bag also. As I stated, mine gets use in daylight but never at night. At night I normally just pick what focal length I want for the subject planned and take the correct prime. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 24, 2006 Share #12 Posted November 24, 2006 It renders a little more like the non-ASPH primes, in that it has slighty less micro contrast and sharpness when compared to the new ASPH primes. In the bright & contrasty AZ sun, this often works well. Ray Hi Ray, That's a good description and I agree with your characterization of the lens. Slightly less macro contrast as well. I did test the Tri-Elmar on the Epson and will get around to testing it on the M8 as I work my way through lenses. Right now its the 28s. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 24, 2006 Share #13 Posted November 24, 2006 I'm also very impressed by the results I get from the Tri-Elmar. Whether f/4 is fast enough depends on what you shoot. One thing not mentioned above is the question of dust entry with the M8: With a Tri-Elmar, you'll do fewer lens changes than if you had all fixed focal lengths, and thereby reduce the opportunity of dust entering the camera. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 24, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 24, 2006 Sean, I look forward to the 28 comparo. I am thinking of using my 30% to get the 28/2 instead of the 28/2.8, both Asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted November 24, 2006 Share #15 Posted November 24, 2006 Hi Jonathan, Remember, the 28 angle of view as you use it on your present film body isn't there on the tri-e when used on an M8. 37-47-66 equivalents of the traditional use of focal lengths are supplied with the 1.33 crop factor sensor. About the imaging, pics say more than words. A few tri-e shots. Bridge - 28mm Wall - 35 politician - 50 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/9931-should-i-get-a-tri-elmar-for-my-m8/?do=findComment&comment=102368'>More sharing options...
danielt Posted November 24, 2006 Share #16 Posted November 24, 2006 If you can live with f4 is a perfect lens. You have three lens in one (no change lens = NO dust) My experience with this lens + Epson R-D1 is very positive. I have sent my tri-elmar to Solms in order to codify it. Daniel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blovitch Posted November 24, 2006 Share #17 Posted November 24, 2006 my only niggle with my ( version 2) Tri Elmar is the frame selection on the M8 is a little fiddly... It works fine on the M7. Performance wise, overall a very good lens ,a Tri Elmar on the Camera is worth three in the bag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2006 Share #18 Posted November 24, 2006 My first version selects somewhat better on the M8 than on my M6TTL. I suppose it varies per camera, not per camera type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted November 24, 2006 Share #19 Posted November 24, 2006 Is it true that the second version of the tri-elmar does not accept filters, or am I getting something mixed up with the first version having some sort of built in lens shade? What I am getting at is whether or not there would be a problem with the version two tri-elmar and use of IR filters. Also, does anyone have an opinion regarding the purchase of a version one versus version two tri-elmar as I am also interested in getting a tri-elmar. Cheers, Scott Root Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted November 24, 2006 Share #20 Posted November 24, 2006 The tri-e second generation does accept a filter, there's even a dedicated one with a low flange to prevent vignetting. First version in chrome and black, no DOF indication. Second version only black, with DOF indication. Optics are identical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.