Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I like the 400 and 800 ISO Fuji color films, so the f/4 is not an obstacle for me. I would rather have the option of shallow depth of field, but that's the trade-off. If someone wants to shoot at 5.6-8, I think the Tri-Elmar is a great idea. On the Hexar RF, just choosing 5.6 and letting the camera select the shutter speed would make this one very fast camera to use. At 11:29 AM 2/4/02 -0500, you wrote: >Yes - it's a great lens. I have the newer and this is great - very compact >with more positive detent for the three focal lengths. The polarizer setup >is nicer - a 67 mm filter fitting into a special filter holder much like a >severly vented lens hood allowing you to look thru the polarizer while >turning it. The f/4 is an obstacle but if one like provia 400 and Delta >3200 you might get away with it. The Tri-elmar and 90 TE would be the only >two lenses needed. The Trielmar at f/4 is perfect on the Hexar RF by the >way. Just my thoughts > >ernie > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Bill >Satterfield >Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:21 AM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar > > >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 Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html