Leica Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm f4

Started Jan 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Paul Richman
OP Paul Richman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,003
Thanks, Irakly...

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

-- hide signature --

Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul

 Paul Richman's gear list:Paul Richman's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 Olympus Zuiko Digital 300mm 1:2.8 +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow