Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert, the review I read said the 3E 28-35-50 focal lengths were as good as any of the individual fixed focal lengths. in thought it was Putt's review. The consensus on the LUG seemed to agree, in prior postings. All positives. Robert G. Stevens wrote: > Bill: > > I like the idea of the Tri-Elmar, but I use the M for the fast lenses > and the incredible quality of the images produced. If you read > Erwin's report he says the Tri-Elmar is not up to the level of the > current lenses. I just love the look of the images from the 35mm > Summicron ASPH and the 50mm Summicron. I almost never use a 28mm even > on my R8, so the Tri-Elmar are the wrong three for me. Perhaps if it > was 35-50-70 and a touch faster. > > Regards, > > Robert > > > > At 09:13 AM 2/4/2002 -0600, Bill Satterfield wrote: > >> One more thought. Since I took my trip, I bought a 3E but the f/4 >> would be a limitation in the museums where you will need at least a >> f/2. The 3E might work, I do not know. The 3E would be great for >> outside scenes. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html