I've seen, mounted, and briefly used both the Tri-Elmar versions. I also understand that the newer version has a tabbed focusing ring, DOF scales, and 49mm filters. I also understand the new version has a new hood and that they are both the same optical formula.

But has anyone used both and can comment on handling? The first TE that I picked up with the three rings seemed confusing. The current, tabbed version was better. But is it $500 better?

Thanks,

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), April 22, 2002

Answers

these things are highly subjective of course, but i really don't think that the 1st ver tri-elmar was worthy of the leica name. sure the optics were fine (as you note, the same as the current version), but the ergos were very poor. there is a terrible crunchiness as you shift between focal lengths and the layout is very confusing as you note. the rapid redesign of the lens, in my view, is eveidence that the folks at leica also were very unsatisfied with the lens. was any lens in leica history redesigned as quickly?? buy a new tri-elmar at a leica day, at an out of state dealer, and get him to knock an extra 5-10% off the price (try newtonville camera in newton, mass -- they have an l-day coming up this week and michael is always ready to deal). you'll be glad you spent the extra money.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 22, 2002.

did not previously note that you are in the po' box. perhaps you should disregard my comments.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 22, 2002.

When the v.2 came out I borrowed one for a couple days to compare against my v.1 (which I paid little enough for that I could have sold it without losing anything had I decided I liked the v.2 better). What I found was the following:

1. The v.2 takes a 49mm filter, but it has to be a "slim" 49mm, so all my existing 49mm filters for the 135/3.4 APO would be useless.

2. The reduction in filter size on v.2 (from E55 on v.1) was accomplished by Leica lopping off the flared front of the v.1 which acted as a sort of ersatz shade. Thus to get the same flare protection as a naked v.1 you need to buy the optional $130 shade for the v.2, and then it obscures *more* of the viewfinder than v.1.

3. The focal length selector, claimed to have been improved, simply has stronger detents. V.2 is just as unreliable bringing up framelines as v.1 since the mechanism is identical.

4. The DOF scales on the v.2 (the only reason I was considering it) are a maze of confusing lines. Yes, you can figure them out. But it is just as time-consuming as what I do with the v.1: I made a DOF calculator from a pockeet sliderule. Or for hyperfocal you can just double the distance in meters of the nearest object you want in focus and divide it into 30 (for 28mm) 50 (for 35mm) or 100 (for 50mm)and the quotient is the aperture you need to get that DOF.

5. I have never confused the focal length ring with the focusing ring (or the brake with the gas pedal, or my left and right shoes). I despise finger tabs because they are good only for focusing in the landscape orientation. I would be ok with the tab if there was also milling on the ring so I could use it from any angle, but there isn't. I accept the tab on my 35 and 21 because of the short barrel, but thankfully I don't need to suffer with it on the 3E.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

Skip:

This is one of those "personal preference" issues...

I agree wholeheartedly with roger, AND agree with Jay on points 1,2,3 and 5.

FWIW, I eneded up buying the new version for the improved ergos, which felt a bit better to me, but perhaps not $500 better -- probably more like $300 better <;-)> I ended up not wanting to buy a slew of thin E49 filters, so instead I bought a 49<55 step-up ring, negating any advantage to the slimmer front of the new version. In use, I found this to be an insignificant difference in VF blockage anyway. Also, I found no need for the optional hood, as I never had any flare problems with that lens.

I have since sold my 3E, preferring my primes with their faster speed, but admit the 3E was a stellar performer and especially well suited to casual shooting in normal light situations with the M.

Cheers,

-- J Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 22, 2002.

skip -- just a little follow up. jay's answer was very complete and convincing. i can only again emphasize that, in my hands, the ver. 1 did not feel like a leica product. it would NOT be a pleasure to use long term. IF, however, you have a different reaction, i just wanted to cue you in to a fact that you probably already know. there are a number of dealers stuck with ver 1 tri-e lenses (leica usa is not keen to take them back for credit). i have been offered new ver 1 lenses from official dealers with passport warranties at HUGE discounts (in the neighborhood of 30% off MSRP). if you call a number of dealers around the country, i think you will be able to do very well on a ver. 1. good luck.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 22, 2002.

HI, I just bought a 3E old version in mint condition for $950, I am not sure if that is a good deal or not.

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), April 23, 2002.