Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- ----- Original Message ----- From: Lucien <director@ubi.edu> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Leica]Konica Hexar...It ain't no Leica.. > dominique pellissier wrote: > > > BTW the tri-elmar seems to me an odd thing : very expensive, cumbersome to > > use, and a debatable optical quality at full aperture (f:4 only...). > > Dominique, > > I totally disagree with you about the optical quality. > The Tri-Elmar is really, really good. > My picts on 35 and 50 mm , even wide open, a really sharp. > It's only on the 28 mm position that it's slightly soft on > the corner. > But better than my (1979-93) 28/2,8 at f/4. > > You know, I usually respect CI tests. > But there are two tests result that I don't agree with: > The Tri-Elmar and Apo 90/2 Asph. > > Lucien ######### OK Lucien. Next time I'll try a practical comparison between my 2/35 non asph and the tri-elmar. But, if we compare MTF tests published by Leica, between the 35 asph and the tri-elmar at a focal length of 35 mm, and both the 2 lenses at 5.6, we observe that the 35 is clearly the winner. For CI, the tri- is "very good, good". And the 35 is "excellent, very good". Yes, I know, "CI is -as other photographic reviews- totally bought off to Nikon, or Canon or Minolta. And only Leica foto is an independent review".;-)) Dominique