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: Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:30:59 -0600
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> <5.1.0.14.0.20020204155355.030b01c8@pop.andara.com>

Thanks, I read a different review that said essentially what I related 
earlier. I will try to locate the source.

Robert G. Stevens wrote:

> 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
>
>



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

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)
Message from "Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com> (Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar)