p.1 #1 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I have a chance to buy Leica M Tri Elmars - 16-18-21/4 plus viewfinder and 28-35-50/4.I tried them briefly with old M8 and was quite pleased,but have no opportunity to check their performance on the M9 or Sony NEX/Fuji X/other modern APS-C mirrorles cams.I'm curious whether there are any issues like magenta shift or corner softness or any other caveats.Your feedback much appreciated.
p.1 #2 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I had a 16-18-21 and stupidly, stupidly sold it, thinking a fixed zeiss 18 would replace it and save me some $$.
the tri-elmar (on an M9) is a *spectacularly* good lens. No issues at all, incredible sharpness and beautiful colour rendition. So much better than the zeiss (which also gets good reviews, but isnt a patch on the WATE). The only negative is the viewfinder is huge and clunky, but it's worth it for the images.
p.1 #3 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
In my opinion, I took the 18 SEM over the Wate because of its much lower price and smaller viewfinder.
I absolute love the performance of the 18 SEM. It gives me good sharpness, great colors and even some 3D effect.
For the money of the tri elmar you can almost buy both 18 and 24 or 21. Sure you end up with two lenses instead of one with 3 inside. But the elmars offer great performance (can't imagine the wate to be on par with the 21 SEM) in a smaller jacket.
If you really like wide, and use 16mm, 18mm and 21mm often together there is no other choice than the WATE, but for normal wide angle use I find 1 prime lens to be more than enough.
This all on the M9/ M. On a sony NEX I definitely would not go for the WATE, or for the leica's in general.
I also have a nex 5n together with the sigma's dn, pentax K lenses and off course my leica's. I find the leica the least attractive to use on the nex. The 0,7m minimal focus distance really puts me of with them.
Instead I would pick the new zeiss touit 12mm and be happy with it.
The leica's are great, but deserve a M body in my opinion.
p.1 #4 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I've not tried any of the above (I'm a Zeiss kind of person) but to me the 28-35-50 makes a lot of sense, but not the 16-18-21. In fact my UWA needs are covered by the Distagon 4/18, but I fully agree with Robert, the 18 SEM is spectacular.
p.1 #5 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I was in the market for an RF wide angle not long ago and I decided to go with the WATE. During my research I found that reviews and samples suggested that the SEM is better than the WATE but that doesn't mean its a slouch. I suspect the WATE will be on par with the 18/4 distagon but falls slightly short compared to both SEM. If you're considering the WATE you get versatility/convenience but if you're looking for the strongest performer on a particular focal length you're better off getting a SEM. The distagon 18/4 is also very good at a much more attractive price.
p.1 #7 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
I tried a Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 on my NEX 7. Amazingly, absolutely no corner issues, or even the slightest colour shift. Unfortunately, that is pretty much the extent of the good news. Because it is definitely a good lens, butfor a great price, you need a great lens. And the WATE is not quite of the same caliber as the Elmar 24 or SE 21, or the SE 18.
So, if it is the 3 focal lengths you want without carrying 2 or 3 lenses around, get it. But is you want the best IQ in wides, the Leica primes are better IMHO
Biltje, I have a couple of Leica lenses on my NEX 7, and couldn't be happier. What is it you don't like with them?
p.1 #8 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philber wrote:
Biltje, I have a couple of Leica lenses on my NEX 7, and couldn't be happier. What is it you don't like with them?
Don't get me wrong, I love the leica's and really can imagine lots of people love them on the nex. What I don't like about them is the 0,7m minimum focus distance.
Normally I have no problem at all with that when I use my M9 (street/ architecture photography). But when I use the NEX (only pictures from my family, garden and house) I notice I go closer quite often.
I have the sigma's 19 and 30 and they are perfect for that job with their close focus and AF. Together with them I use pentax K lenses, like the 50/1.4 SMC-M, and with its close focus (0,45m) I like using it more than my 50 cron.
Also, knowing how the cheap sigma's perform on my nex, and seeing how the zeiss touits are going to perform, I find it hard to advice a really expensive leica.
p.1 #9 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
edwardkaraa wrote:
I've not tried any of the above (I'm a Zeiss kind of person) but to me the 28-35-50 makes a lot of sense, but not the 16-18-21. In fact my UWA needs are covered by the Distagon 4/18, but I fully agree with Robert, the 18 SEM is spectacular.
I agree with Edward, the 28-35-50 makes way more sense due to varied FL, the 16-18-21 almost seems like a zeiss or leica prime can handle the task, but then again, I am not a wide angle person
p.1 #10 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Bijltje wrote:
What I don't like about them is the 0,7m minimum focus distance.
Normally I have no problem at all with that when I use my M9 (street/ architecture photography). But when I use the NEX (only pictures from my family, garden and house) I notice I go closer quite often.
I use a Hawk's helicoid adapter from M to E-mount. Some lenses benefit from it more than others, in how much it shortens the MFD. The Summilux 50 not so much, maybe 35%, the ZM 35 more and the Elmar 24 unbelievably so, maybe 65%. I recommend it warmly.
p.1 #11 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Thank you guys for your valuable input.I would like to get the best IQ out of such pricey lenses and versatility is not my major point here.Primes may be a better choice according to what you said.Good to know that there should be no issues with the fussy NEX7 sensor.I think I will order an M - NEX adapter and try the lenses out before making final decision.Thank you all again.
p.1 #12 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
The general specification of theses M lenses will be important soon, as it is very likely Sony will only get better at dealing with corner issues, colour etc. due to extreme ray angles. But that is exacerbated by, caused by, the reg distance.
The FF version of the NEX will presumable start with a fresh spec registration distance, one that may very well be longer than the tiny 18mm of Sony E mount...Leica M is 28mm and everyone thinks of them as quite compact. Native NEX lenses (APS-C) cannot be used on an FF camera anyway except as artificial crops. Am I missing something here?
There will be Zeiss AF lenses which can be expected to be FF Touits, but these will almost certainly augmented by M class lens capability, an avenue for CZ's ZMs lenses and the Leica M range, Voigt etc.
These kinds of lenses discussed here are the reference for the new Sony, of course. The 21mm and 24mm go for $2500-$3000 new in the US, the ZM wides for a max of $1400 (21mm), many are $1000 or so. The Touits are similarly priced. Users will be spoilt for choice on FF, all the above are very fine indeed.
That is likely to be the beginning of the end for DSLR dominance, many will hang onto one for macro and tele, some pro work. Kind of how many hung onto medium format cameras back with film.
p.1 #13 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philip_pj wrote:
extreme ray angles. But that is exacerbated by, caused by, the reg distance.
Vector forces & trigonometry 101 ... so true.
Part of the reason I like shooting MF on FF, or FF on crop is to harness the trig advantage or at least negate the disadvantage of the shorter reg distance. As with all things optics, always a series of trade-offs, i.e. the shorter your reg, the more extreme your angle (for a given sensor size). Make the sensor smaller, or make the lens larger to reign in those angles ... or curve the sensor for an equi-distance/equi-length ray, but we aren't quite there yet.
The concept of the Tri 16-18-21 is intriguing, but my Leica speak is a pretty light at this point. Could someone clarify:
SEM
WATE
BTW ... Robert, diggin' the mono 3D-ishness ... smooth and 3D-ish, that's a bit of a trick. Vignetting doesn't seem too bad, and I'm guessing the corners are part of the equation for the 3D-ishness, without mustache. (Vignette, resolution or mustache, choose your poison @ UWA corners).
p.1 #15 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philip_pj wrote:
The general specification of theses M lenses will be important soon, as it is very likely Sony will only get better at dealing with corner issues, colour etc. due to extreme ray angles. But that is exacerbated by, caused by, the reg distance.
The reg distance isn't the problem. The problem is the exit pupil distance.
Granted, some designs extend into the mirror box more than others, and that can make those angles even more extreme, depending on size/shape of rear element. But, as a general correlation, longer reg and longer exit pupil tend to go hand in hand from one format to another from what I've noted. Tamron Adapt-All maybe being a bit of an exception.
p.1 #17 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
Would it be correct to say that Sony (or another manufacturer) could produce a camera with closer to an M mount dimensionally (let's call it) that would remove the known corner and colour issues seen in E mount usage of M lenses?
My point here was to raise the notion that Sony could make a mirrorless that was M lens friendly in all important technical respects...and if they could why would they not? It would make the design process for them (and lens partner CZ) much easier. They could even make their own high quality adapters, or even licence the M mount.
Since enthusiast users rushed to find ways to put high end rangefinder lenses on E mount cameras with decidely mixed results, this looks like it might be a final and very satisfying solution, in design and commercial terms.
It seems an easy entree into what Zeiss described the other day as the 'strongest field of growth', combined with existing high end optics, plus (in time) CZ AF lenses, and their own range, plus coupled (adapted) A mount lenses, and just about anything anything else.
p.1 #19 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
philip_pj wrote:
My point here was to raise the notion that Sony could make a mirrorless that was M lens friendly in all important technical respects...and if they could why would they not? It would make the design process for them (and lens partner CZ) much easier. They could even make their own high quality adapters, or even licence the M mount.
p.1 #20 · Leica M Tri elmars - what is your opinion?
RustyBug wrote:
SEM
WATE
BTW ... Robert, diggin' the mono 3D-ishness ... smooth and 3D-ish, that's a bit of a trick. Vignetting doesn't seem too bad, and I'm guessing the corners are part of the equation for the 3D-ishness, without mustache. (Vignette, resolution or mustache, choose your poison @ UWA corners).
SEM = Super Elmar M (18/3.8, 21/3.4, the 24/3.8 is called Elmar M)
WATE = Wide Angle Tri Elmar aka 16-18-21
MATE = Medium Angle Tri Elmar aka 28-35-50
About the 3D, I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you try to say.
@ corners of WATE