Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar
From: "Patrick R. McKee" <photonewsnetwork@ameri-com.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:19:26 -0400

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.