I am new to Leica and am fretting over whether to purchase a Trielmar 28-35-50, or a 35mm Summicron and 50mm Elmar for my M6. My only problem with the 3E is that it only opens to f4. The only lens I own at present is a used 90mm Elmarit. Any comments or advice? Thanks.

-- Ted R . King (zenspector@aol.com), January 27, 2002

Answers

If you use the 3E for travel purpose and for portaits the 90 mm because of DOF than you should go for 3E. If you are looking for typical avaible light photography you should go the classic lenses.

cheers

-- Salvatore Reitano (reitanosalvatore@hotmail.com), January 27, 2002.

Well, you can always stop down with the primes, right? If I had a 0,58 body, I'd probably get a tri-elmar. But the 28 would be wasted on me with the 0,72 body.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 27, 2002.

Ted, the Tri-Elmar has a very good reputation ,but it sounds like you're gonna want some faster glass for shooting in low light situations. How bout a 35 and 50mm summicron with your 90mm Elmarit. That would be a light weight, versatile kit. Or you might even want to consider faster lenses. But don't miss the experience of using your M6 in dim light with some fast glass, wide open. It's a lotta fun, Good luck

-- Ronald Wills (youngdeer@earthlink.net), January 27, 2002.

Ted, ask yourself *why* you think f/4 is a problem with 28,35 and 50mm lens. Is it because you're used to an SLR where the finder is hard to focus with an f/4 lens, or because you do a lot of shooting in low light levels with slow film, or because you want to retain as shallow DOF as possible? Those are good reasons for buying a faster lens, not because internet chatter tries to stereotype the Leica M as a dim-light-street-shooting-only camera. The Tri-Elmar is the most convenient lens available for the M. Obviating the need for frequent lens changes goes toward making up for the M's slowness in other areas (metering, loading/unloading, even focusing sometimes). Certainly the cost of the 3E is a bargain compared to 3 prime lenses. I carry a 35/1.4ASPH along with my 3E for low-light use, but in practice I only use it for maybe 5% of the shots. You can always pick up a decent 50/2 from the 70's for $400-500 to adjunct the 3E. So unless your intended use is more than 30% at wider apertures, the 3E will function admirably for you. Remember, you can shoot it wide open all the time. It's not like a typical f/3.5-4.5 Japanese zoom that you really need to stop down to f/8-11 for decent image quality.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 27, 2002.

Correction to above: I did not mean to imply that finder brightness in an SLR is a good reason to buy a fast lens for the Leica M...bad placement of commas!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 27, 2002.

Ted, I love mine...don't know why I took so long to get it. I do a lot of travel photography and like to travel lightly. Make up for the relatively slow speed with higher speed film. Being able to shift focal lengths quickly aids in both composition and metering. I did get the sunshade which is likely the most expensive sunshade I've ever bought. It is a nice piece of work and reverses position when not in use.

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), January 27, 2002.

Yes, Jay you have addressed some of the issues concerning the f4 problem. I have been using a 35-105mm Nikkor 3.5/4 with an F3 for he majority of my shooting for the past several years and have missed the faster speeds at certain times, but only at certain times,and the quality of image suffered at wide open. Maybe I need to look more at the percentages. I am also starting to travel more now, and am trying to minimize and lighten up as a result. In the 1970s and 80s I traveled extensively with an Olympus OM1 and 35mm and 105mm f2.8 lenses only. This was a good travel combination and I rarely felt the desire for anything more, except ,of course, that it be Leica gear. BTW I am leaving for Nepal, Tibet, Sikkim amd Bhutan in March. Much trekking and rough overland travel involved. Another reason to lighten up and minimize. Thanks, Ted

-- Ted R. King (zenspector@aol.com), January 27, 2002.

I just came back from two days of photography at various Buddist and Daoist temples in Chengdu, China. This is the place to go if you are interested in ancient religious structures. Anyway the inner courtyard of these temples did not let in a lot of light which was already defused by the winter fog above. The ground was wet from morning rains and luckily reflected some light. The smoke from burning incense added to the atmosphere. I was shooting TMax 100 and the Tri-Elmar did not see any use. The 35mm Summilux ASPH stayed on my Hexar at f/2 the entire time. It would have been unfortunate if I only had the 3E. But then again I would have brought Tri-X if I only had the 3E. If I was in your shoes I would first buy either Summicron and then the 3E and pretend it is a slow 28mm Elmarit. Great lens, too bad about the speed.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 28, 2002.

I cannot imagine that thing is as sharp as a prime lens.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 28, 2002.

I have 2 M6's, one TTL and one pre-TTL. I too was convinced by a salesman that the tri-elmar was good for travel. What a bunch of whooey. When I got it, I was really disappointed in the craftsmanship, the f-stop ring was loose and flimsey, and the shifting between focal lengths was rough. This might be one of the few Leica items that dissapoints (decide for yourself). Sent it back and got a Noctilux, which is a dream lens. I also have the 35 1.4 asph. and the 90/2 apo/asph. which are both fantastic lenses. I also have two older lenses, a 50/1.5 and a 135/4, which I have up for sale with the non-ttl m6. As for the portability and lens switching business, if speed and zomming are your thing, get a Nikon.

If mindful photography and top-notch optics are important to you, stick with prime lenses. I took my 2 cameras and 4 lenses on vacation to San Francisco, Carmel, and San Simeon and brought back some really awesome pictures and slides.

As a side note, now that I'm doing my own printing, I shoot with a Mamiya 7II and 3 lenses 50, 80, and 150, which is a really kick-ass 6x7 viewfinder camera. Printing with 35mm negs is way too boring. (Bigger neg=better detail) Hasselblads don't lend themselves to portability.

Be careful with used stuff, if someone tells you "scratches on the glass won't affect the picture quality", don't deal with them, they're morons selling stuff that wasn't theirs or they abuse photo equipment.

Good luck with that.

-- Les (1fatcat@usa.com), January 28, 2002.

The Tri elmar is certainly very convienant/small in bright light.I think the primes are a bit better though and f4 is damn slow.You need to compare.You might want to go to a leica dealer and shoot a bit with different lenses on the same camera body and eyeball the slides to see which lens is best.I did this with a 75 1.4,35asph.1.4,and a tri elmar recently.The tri elmar was not quite up to the others at the 1st two f stops for each lens.The 75mm really kicked ass!Absolutly beautiful image quality.I liked it the best but bought the 35mm 1.4 for my needs.With the Leicas I'm always looking for more speed and always need it.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), January 28, 2002.

Ted,

If you wear glasses you'll probably find the 28mm frameline too difficult to use on an M6 TTL .72 body. I started off with a .72 and Tri-Elmar but I quickly decided to add a .58 body, which I found to be far better. My .72 body still gets used with my 50/1.4 Summilux and 90/2.8 Elmarit lenses, for which its magnification is much better suited.

I've found the 3E to be a great lens for use outdoors in daylight or indoors with flash. Its optical quality is highly praised by Erwin Puts (web site http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html), for what it's worth. I wouldn't like to be without my 50 'lux, though, since I'm not all that keen on flash and the 3E's f/4 is definitely too slow for shooting in low available light.

I've never seen the first model of the 3E but I understand that the current model is mechanically improved, with a more positive focal length selector and a smaller barrel. It also has a DOF scale for each focal length, which I find useful but which some people have said they don't like.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.

Re: the comment that the Tri-Elmar can't possibly be as good as prime lenses...maybe you might want to actually use one before saying so? In my experience with the 3E it is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the lenses I compared it to: 28/2.8 v.4, 35/2ASPH, and 50/2 11819 current. The 28 end shows a *touch* more distortion than the prime 28, but unless you're shooting architecture you will not notice it.

Re: mechanical quality. My lens is a v.1. Sometimes on both M6's or Hexar it is necessary for me to flick the frame preselector to snap in the 50 frames after switching from one of the other focal lengths. Takes a split second, I'm used to it. I would have sent it to Leica for service, but the problem happens only from the 28 end on the Hexar and 35 end on the M6's, so a "fix" might even make it worse on the Hexar. I've heard that the v.2 has stronger detents on the zoom ring, but the frame selection sentitivity persists.

Re: slowness of aperture. I can handhold a Leica with a 50mm to 1/30. In "sunny 16" light, with ISO 100 film, f/4 gets you 1/2000! That means the light can drop *6 EV* before you need to start looking for someplace to brace a table tripod or switch to a higher-speed film. With the 35 and 28 settings you can handhold to 1-2 stops slower. A faster lens is really only necessary in specialized circumstances, i.e. where you need the wider apertures for purposeful decrease in DOF for subject isolation. Otherwise just having a faster lens means you can take a shot, but due to the DOF it might not be the shot you want. Fast lenses are not the panacea to lowlight photography, it is good that modern fast films have come so far.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 28, 2002.

I have to chime in on the "it can't be as good as Leica primes" comment too. For the record, I have the current version of 3E, so my comments relate to that model. At the 50/4 setting, I found the 3E virtually indistinguishable in performance when compared to the beloved 50 'Cron at f4 -- a lens that a majority of the members of this forum tout so lovingly. Don't get me wrong, I think the 50 'Cron is a great lens too. But after seeing the results I got from the 3E, I sold the 50 'Cron because it just was not going to get used. There are a few downsides to the 3E, but optical performance is not one of them. (FWIW, my lens performs its best at 50/5.6 and worst at 28/4, and the 28/4 aint bad at all...)

IMO, the downsides are relatively slow aperture, size, and mechanical performance while changing focal-lengths. F4 can be limiting to me in very low levels of light, like very early morning or late evening. Here is where I generally put one of my faster lenses on. But, during more civilized shooting times, I find f4 more than adequate with 100 ISO film. As for size, the 3E is bulky when compared to any of its fixed-focal counterparts -- but then again, so is a zoom lens on an SLR. Furthermore, the total bulk (and cost) of the 3E is signifcantly less than the three fixed-focal lenses it replaces. Thus, the one real issue I have with the lens is focal selection. For whatever reason Leica did not go far enough in creating more positive detents in the new version lens, as it is still less than positive. Also, like the others have mentioned, I sometimes have to flick my finder lever or give the selection ring on the lens and extra twist when going to the 35 setting as it sometimes does not quite fully engage the 35 frameline set.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 28, 2002.

Personally, I don't like "Gimmick" lenses...........yes, I think that tri-elmar is a gimmick lens, but granted, I've never even touched one. To each his own. It's sort of like that nikon 80-400 with the image stabilizer..sure you can hand hold the thing at 1/30th, etc., but you'll still get motin blur from the subject, so what's the point?

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 28, 2002.

Tom:

>It's sort of like that nikon 80-400 with the image stabilizer..sure you can hand hold the thing at 1/30th, etc., but you'll still get motin blur from the subject, so what's the point?<

Not if you pan along with the subject!

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 28, 2002.

Another feature about the tri elmar is it dosnt focus very closly.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), January 28, 2002.

Yes, the 3E only focusses to 1m, but let's be honest - how many times pictures do most of us really take in the .7 to 1 meter range?

Like Jay, I use the 3E as my standard walkabout lens, but I couldn't live with it as an only lens. I really feel the need for the 35/1.4 (among others) to back it up for available light.

Personally, if I were in Ted King's postition (as I once was), I'd get the 35/2.0 ASPH and the tabbed 50/2.0. Both are widely available used in good condition at considerable savings over new. While shooting with those classic lenses for a couple of years I'd save up for a Tri-Elmar.

Part of the joy of shooting with a Leica is the "anywhere, anytime" aspect of it. The 3E isn't an "anywhere, anytime" lens. The 35 and 50 Summicrons approach that ideal. In addition, shooting with single focal length lenses forces you to think a bit more about your subject - instead of twisting the ring you have to decide how to frame it with whatever's on the camera at the time. It's a great way to get to know your focal lengths instinctively.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), January 28, 2002.

Nothing personal here, but I just helped to judge a "photojournalism" contest at a local camera club..............I can only take so many perfectly panned pictures of motorcycles and racing boats. Thanks anyway.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 28, 2002.

Interesting responses to a fairly direct question. Half of the respondents have never used the lens. I own most Lieca M lenses made since 1980 and have shot M's for thirty years, the one that goes out most often is the Tri-Elmar. As a lens to shoot in daylight, on the street, in the mountains, for snaps it is the most diverse lens made by Leica. Indoors no, use a fixed focal length; how much are you shooting available light indoors?

The technology of film has made this lens a star, it is not a novelty, it is a weight saving, wickedly sharp, rapid response tool for any m camera bag, those that say otherwise have never used it or are speciality shooters.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), February 18, 2002.