Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks for the report, I have not had a chance to even unpack the boxes. Hopefully, today. Pat PNN prm@photonewsnetwork.com - ---------- > From: Edward Kowaleski <edwardk9@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar > For what it is worth, here is a quick reaction to the TriElmar lens > compared to some prime lenses. > I purchased a TriElmar last weekend from Adray's in Dearborn, Mi. I > quickly exposed one roll of Kodak Royal Gold 100 with a daughter holding > a gray card as the subject. I took pics in bright sunlight from about > seven feet at f4,5.6, > & 8 using the TriElmar and then a 28mm 2.8 Elmarit (2nd Generation), 35 mm > Sumilux, and 50 mm Summicron (newest generation). I printed 8 x 10 prints > of the f.5.6 exposures (time did not permit printing all the pics) using a > SuperChromega D and a 50mm Focotar-2 on Kodak F grade RA paper in a Durst > RCP40 ProcessoR. I used a Color Star 3000 to determine exposure time > (kept f.8.0 on the Focotar-2) and filtration. There was very little > variation in density or filtration when measuring both skin tone and gray > scale. At least on 8x10 prints I can see no apparent differences in > sharpness or contrast. > > Hope this helps. Ed Kowaleski.