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: "Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:51:38 -0400
References: <20020204024813.14023.qmail@web10407.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020204002150.00b139a0@pop.andara.com> <005d01c1ad89$dcf5b6e0$ecbf91d8@cbsi> <5.1.0.14.0.20020204114433.0306a1a0@pop.andara.com>

Bill:

To quote Erwin Puts "The fixed focal lenses outperform the 3E in the image 
quality at the level of extremely fine details and the performance in the 
outer zones and extreme corners. The overall contrast of the ffl's too is 
better, giving the pictures slightly more clarity."

"The Leica user who needs outstanding performance at apertures wider than 
f/4,0 and/or big enlargements showing the smallest image detail with great 
clarity and contrast needs to change lenses and wear out her bayonet flange."

This is from the "Comparison to fixed focal lengths 
section"  and  "Conclusion" sections.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/trielmar.html

I chose most of my Leica lenses for the clarity and contrast.


Regards,

Robert

At 10:21 AM 2/4/2002 -0600, Bill Satterfield wrote:
>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

Replies: Reply from Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net> (Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar)
In reply to: Message from oliver steiner <violindevil@yahoo.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Paterson's Acupan 200 Film)
Message from "Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com> ([Leica] Trip to Paris)
Message from "Jim" <jimlong@inwave.com> (Re: [Leica] Trip to Paris)
Message from "Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com> (Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar)