16-18-21 f4 Tri Elmar ASPH
Old 03-27-2011   #1
hugivza
Registered User
 
hugivza's Avatar
 
hugivza is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 428
16-18-21 f4 Tri Elmar ASPH

I have recently acquired an M8.2. There is a used but mint 16-18-21 f4 Tri Elmar ASPH lens available locally. Reports on the lens that I have read seem good, but before I purchase, I wonder if anyone has experience with this lens. I am aware that there is a need for a supplementary viewfinder (the M 21-24-28) and additional filtering requiring an additional holder. I have an f4 15mm Heliar, but vignetting is a problem and wonder if the Elmar is worth splashing the cash?
__________________
Contax IIIa, IIa, Leica M 240, M Mono, MP, X1, DLux 109, Sony A7r, Lumix GH-3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #2
hugivza
Registered User
 
hugivza's Avatar
 
hugivza is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 428
All I have read indicates the same. The lens is expensive but well priced with respect to a new one. I will have to wait until the weekend to purchase. On classical matters, I am glad to see the Vegetius is still flourishing and not being consumed in the fire!
__________________
Contax IIIa, IIa, Leica M 240, M Mono, MP, X1, DLux 109, Sony A7r, Lumix GH-3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #3
rickp
Registered User
 
rickp's Avatar
 
rickp is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasw_ View Post
The WATE (wide angle tri elmar) has a stellar reputation. I have not read otherwise anywhere with regard to its functionality or capability. If money is not an issue, get it and enjoy it.
thomas has described the lens correctly. i was impressed by jonoslack's threads on the other forum using this lens during his early M9 testing. have a look and see what the lens can do in good hands.

re filter - i used the leica 67mm filter adapter instead of the milich adapter, and a voigtlander 15mm viewfinder instead of the leica 16-21 (21-28) viewfinder. good enough for my purposes, and quite a bit smaller on the camera. you might start that way and change later?

enjoy your new lens

rick

Last edited by rickp : 03-28-2011 at 13:29.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #4
hugivza
Registered User
 
hugivza's Avatar
 
hugivza is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 428
Nick thanks for that - I have Voigtlander 15, 21, and 28mm viewfinders which will save on the financial outlay. The idea to use the 67mm filter adaptor is also helpful. I will flip over to the other thread when I get a moment. I'll let you know how I get on.
__________________
Contax IIIa, IIa, Leica M 240, M Mono, MP, X1, DLux 109, Sony A7r, Lumix GH-3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #5
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
It's gorgeous. From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...ws%20wate.html

This is a lens that we [my wife Frances and I] would both love to own -- and therein lies the rub. As noted above, we could probably just about afford one; we almost certainly could if we could persuade Leica to give us a significant press discount.

The trouble is, we would then be in a position to fight over it. As noted in the review of the 4/18 Distagon, Frances really likes the 18mm option on film, with 16mm for when she wants a bit more coverage, or 21mm for when she wants a bit less. Roger, on the other hand, is happy enough with his existing 21mm and 15mm lenses on film, seeing the WATE more as a convenient replacement for those two lenses than anything else. The real difference comes when he uses the M8, when the WATE is effectively a replacement for his 'standard wide' 21mm on film: 16mm being, as already noted, the equivalent of 21mm on the M8. It's a much nicer, handier, sweeter-handling lens than the 15/4.5 Voigtländer. For film, where he uses the 15mm seldom, this doesn't matter. With the M8, where he really wants a 21mm equivalent, it does.


You'll also find sample pics and suggestions about finders.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #6
hausen
Registered User
 
hausen is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 910
Would love one on my M9 but man I would be in trouble. Grab it with both hands.
__________________
David
Auckland, NZ

Far too many cameras & lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2011   #7
bob338
Registered User
 
bob338's Avatar
 
bob338 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sausalito, CA
Posts: 1,214
I bought this lens a few months ago and have not regretted it for a second. The pictures I get with it are miles away better than the 15mm Heliar, not even the same league.
I rarely use the finder, it's beautiful and works perfectly when you have time to think about your picture, but the majority of what i shoot these days is my kids, so I just guess at framing and I'm usually reasonably happy with it.
I paid $3700 for mine. I've seen them going up to about $5k-ish on ebay lately. I suspect they'll rise in price since it has been(or is being) discontinued.
Good luck!

Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2011   #8
hugivza
Registered User
 
hugivza's Avatar
 
hugivza is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 428
The one I am looking at is Singapore $6,000 with filter holder, ie about $US 4,620. the lens appears to be mint and has clearly had little use. The new price in Singapore (currently unavailable) is $S8,880 + $220 for the filter holder = $S 9,100 about $US 7,000 which is expensive in my view. Adorama advertise it on back order at $US5,995 with viewfinder (around $US 850 for the viewfinder as a single piece) which seems to equate to $US$5,145 for the lens alone. A used but apparent mint lens at a discount of $525 from the new price. It is available and I am in Borneo next week and could take it with me, and the domestic financial manager has not exactly said no when the subject was broached. Decisions, decisions - I will let you know, but it is still positive.

What is clear is that everyone who either has the lens or has used it is strongly in its favour. Thanks for the input. I am fortunate that my wife is a pianist and the cost of our recent move to Singapore was a brand new grand piano: the lens pales into insignificance in relative terms. Emboldened I go!
__________________
Contax IIIa, IIa, Leica M 240, M Mono, MP, X1, DLux 109, Sony A7r, Lumix GH-3.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:37.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.