Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/04

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Tri-Elmar
From: "Jeffery L.Smith" <jsmith45@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:24:04 -0600
References: <3C5EB4F5.4030803@istate.net>

I like the 400 and 800 ISO Fuji color films, so the f/4 is not an obstacle 
for me. I would rather have the option of shallow depth of field, but 
that's the trade-off. If someone wants to shoot at 5.6-8, I think the 
Tri-Elmar is a great idea. On the Hexar RF, just choosing 5.6 and letting 
the camera select the shutter speed would make this one very fast camera to 
use.


At 11:29 AM 2/4/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Yes - it's a great lens.  I have the newer and this is great - very compact
>with more positive detent for the three focal lengths.  The polarizer setup
>is nicer - a 67 mm filter fitting into a special filter holder much like a
>severly vented lens hood allowing you to look thru the polarizer while
>turning it.  The f/4 is an obstacle but if one like provia 400 and Delta
>3200 you might get away with it.  The Tri-elmar and 90 TE would be the only
>two lenses needed. The Trielmar at f/4 is perfect on the Hexar RF by the
>way.  Just my thoughts
>
>ernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Bill
>Satterfield
>Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:21 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar
>
>
>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
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net> (Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar)