Leica Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm f4

Started Jan 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Paul Richman
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,093Gear list
Like?
Thanks, Irakly...
In reply to Irakly Shanidze, Jan 10, 2012

Irakly Shanidze wrote:

Tri-Elmar is certainly expensive, and Zeiss gives you excellent and relatively low cost options. Most things pro and contra were already said.
I just want to add a couple of points

1. Tri-Elmar is a much higher quality optically than the proposed R-zoom. Also it is undeniably smaller than ANY R-zoom. the only driving force for opting for the 35-70 R is the price.

The R zoom gives more range and close-up capability. I have now read some impressive reviews of the Leica 35-70 R. I'll know more once I test the lens that's coming Thursday.

2. The real advantage of Tri-Elmar versus Zeiss is when you have to work in a dusty environment where unmounting a lens is a bad idea.

This can be an issue for me, at times. Also, when I'm traveling, I sometimes don't have time to change lenses, so I must shoot with what's on the camera. Zoom then gives me more options. Getting the picture is more important IQ alone, although I won't settle for soft corners or mediocre IQ traits.

I'm still thinking that the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-21mm will be a good fit for me, for that range.

Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en

-- hide signature --

Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul

 Paul Richman's gear list:Paul Richman's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow