I spent some time searching the archives but didn't see answers to these questions about the current 3E:

- Is there a lens hood for it? - Will the current swing-out polarizer work with it? - Is the color rendtion neutral, warm or cool? - How does it compare at f/4.0 to the latest non-ASPH 28, 35 and 50 in terms of contrast? - What size filters does it take?

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), April 20, 2002

Answers

There is a lens hood. It's a big sucker, though, and I haven't heard of many people using it. The lens certainly doesn't need it for flare protection - it's one of the most flare-proof lenses I've used. I think the colour rendition is pretty neutral, but I'm not terribly sensitive to that. The colour looks pretty much the same as my other M lenses.

The contrast is very similar to the other lenses you mention. The resolution at 28mm is lower than the 28 Elmarit, at 35mm its a bit lower than the 35 Summicron, and at 50mm it's about the same as the 50 Summicron.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 20, 2002.

Hood: Yes. But it costs $130 and does not come with the lens.

Polarizer: No the swing-out won't work. Leica makes an adaptor which takes a 67mm polarizer and has vent holes so you can see the polarization from behind the lens (eg through the viewfinder).

Color rendition: Optically the same as previous 3E, which I own, the color rendition is on a par with most other current Leica lenses, i.e. neutral to most people, cool to me.

Contrast at f/4 is similar to the lenses you mention when they are also at their maximum apertures. Stopped down to f/4 those primes have a bit higher contrast. Stopped down to f/5.6 or lower the 3E is right up there with the best.

Filters: 49mm *thin*. Regular E49's vingette.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

Thanks guys, I think I'll stick to my primes.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), April 20, 2002.

I agree with Paul except to add that I find the resolution indistinguishable from the primes when stopped down to f5.6 or f8 region. Other than being a two stops slower than a 'cron I don't think you could tell the difference in results.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 21, 2002.

The name of the game with the 3E is convenience. The difference in optical quality between it and the prime lenses is a *lot less* than between primes and zooms in general. The f/2 and f/1.4 primes are at their absolute best by f/4 (2-3 stops down from open), whereas the 3E is at its absolute best at f/5.6 (1 stop down) and this represents only a tiny improvement from f/4. In addition the 3E keeps its performance from 5.6 all the way down, whereas most of the fast primes start to wimp out again from f/8. I would not be without my 3E, but also would not be without my 35/1.4ASPH. Two different tools for two different uses. For most of my shooting, at f/5.6-f/16, the convenience of the 3E is immeasurable and the performance is actually better than the primes at all focal lengths.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 21, 2002.

I have to agree with Jay. I have used the 3E since it was introduced and have found it to be a wonderful alternative to the respective primes. The lens is in its element when you are traveling light, don't want your pockets full of lenses or a bag on your sholder and/or are shooting an outdoor event where space is limited. You can act fast, frame fast, shoot in available light and be assurred of supurb contrast, sharpness and resolution; this is why you use an M.

-- Richard Hoag (wpcdallas@aol.com), April 22, 2002.