Re: [Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses

[Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net>]

See  "Leica Lens Compendium" by Erwin Puts, page 135 where he states as 
follows:

    As a general conclusion one may say that the performance is 
outstanding when compared to the current 28, 35 and 50  mm
    lenses at their 1:4 setting, and like it or not, the Tri Elmar is 
 BETTER than most of the previous generations of the 28,35,
    and 50 mm Leica lenses.

I  relied on this review when I bought the new version. Otherwise , I 
would never have bought the lens. I do no like to compromise the quality 
of the  35 and 50 I already own

Steve Caspersen wrote:

>Is there an archive for Erwin's APEMC newsletters?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Howard Cummer" <cummer@netvigator.com>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:45 PM
>Subject: [Leica] Quality of Tri Elmar compared to fixed lenses
>
>
>>>When I noted that my current view is that the TriElmar at 4 is better
>>>
>than
>
>>>the S'cron50 at 4, it was evident that some would object.
>>>
>>This is Erwin from newsletter 47 of his APEMC newsletter. I have lost the
>>original article unfortunately, but the gist of it was that he retested
>>
>the
>
>>Tri Elmar with new films and concluded that at 50mm and f4.0 it was better
>>than the Summicron 50 at F4.0 which is the bench mark for 50mm lens
>>performance in the Leica stable.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Howard.
>>
>>--
>>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