Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar
From: "Patrick R. McKee" <photonewsnetwork@ameri-com.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:53:45 -0400

Good Morning, Ed
I find that I take my M-6 with me more frequently. I would normally take my
R-8 and a zoom. I am in a wheelchair and find that I have more
maneuverability with the M-6 using the Tri-Elmar. In city situations I
can't get on and off the sidewalk as another might and the increased
possibilities with out several lenses to carry makes life easier.
Patrick R. McKee
PNN                                   
prm@photonewsnetwork.com

- ----------
> From: Edward Kowaleski <edwardk9@umcc.umcc.umich.edu>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 9:31 AM
> 
>  

> I bouight one and have made moderate use of it.  I did make some
> comparison pics at 28mm, 355mm, and 50mm with a 35 1.4 S'lux (non-asph),
> 50mm S'cron (latest version), and a 2mmm Elmarit (2nd veersion).  I took
> pics of my daughter in bright sunlite at about 10' at f4, f.5.6, and f8. 

> I printed 8x10s (focatar II 50mm enlrg lens on a Omega 4x5 enlrg).  Not
> very scientific but it always seemed to me that the proof was in the
> pics.  Results:  I couldn't see any difference at f5.6 or f8.  At f.4 the

> 28 mm seemed slightly more contrasty, the 35 and 50 prime lenses have
very
> very slight 
> improvement in detail in the shadows -- however this got pretty
> subjective.  The film was Kodak 100 Royal Gold.
> 
> I like the lens (I have to justify its purchase!) for cutting down carry
> around lens weight.  In f.5.6 light situations it is really good.  Hope
> this helps.   
> 
> Ed Kowaleski