Lessons from the Leica 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M

Shiitake mushrooms. I detest this abomination. I have always felt this way about this hateful fungus for as long as I can remember. That said, you must think that I hate all mushrooms. But, I don’t. In fact, I love mushrooms. I love portobello mushrooms. I love porcini mushrooms. I love them all in all its many forms - whether it’s oyster mushrooms, hen-of-the-woods, trumpet royale mushrooms, wood-ear fungus, or enoki mushrooms. Knowing that, why do I hate shiitake mushrooms then? It really makes no sense for me to be so selective in my loathing.

Speaking rationally, shiitake mushrooms do not taste all that different from other mushrooms. And in terms of texture, it is not all that different either. But the moment I feel shiitake mushrooms inside my mouth - touching my teeth - and the moment I taste it, I feel this uncontrollable gag reflex to expel it from my mouth. Yuck! Truly unpleasant! There is no fooling my palette. Despite the shiitake’s similarity to other mushrooms, my tastebuds will always detect it whenever an offending morsel infiltrates the food I am eating - alerting my limbic system.

So, why do I hate shiitake mushrooms? It is a neural connection I created in my brain when I was a very young child. As the family lore goes, a wicked cousin of mine told me that shiitake mushrooms were grown on night soil (being the historical euphemism and not the more common vernacular that was said to me). Well, you can guess how that made me never want to eat it. And so, hate begets hate. As a result, I hate shiitake mushrooms because I hate them. The only way I can overcome my hate is by being mindful of this hate when eating them.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. Photobombing person in background removed. At 35mm focal length.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. Now at 28mm focal length. At this point, I decided not to do a focal length comparison because that would be too tedious on film.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. Evidence of barrel distortion @35mm. — Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. Evidence of barrel distortion @28mm.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. Strangely, the barrel distortion @35mm seems even more severe 🤷‍♂️

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash. She blinked. I edited the photo. More barrel distortion.

There is always something in the world that we hate for the sake of hating. Case in point is the much maligned Leica 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M forsaken deep inside my dry box. How I hate it with a burning hate - akin to my hate for shiitake mushrooms. I mean, the Tri-Elmar should have been a lens close to my heart. But instead, it is at best an oddity, requiring an acquired taste to like (or rather acute mindfulness to swallow down without gagging). Oh, how I hate it. In my mind, there is no lens more hateful in Leica’s long history than the Tri-Elmar.

It really should have been a lens for me to love. I mean, it had all the right attributes required for a sought after lens. It had pedigree. It had precision engineering. And, it had that extra something special never seen before on the business end of a lens intended for rangefinders - variable focal length. Think about it! For the very first time, Leica photographers could shoot at the 28-35-50mm focal lengths without having to interchange lenses or carry multiple cameras. Switching from subject isolation to environmental inclusivity is just a turn of a ring.

At the time of the Tri-Elmar’s release, Leica enthusiasts should have been rushing to get their own copy of this innovative lens. The prospect of such in-lens convenience to optimize composition for either subject isolation or environmental inclusivity should have been much too good to pass up. Unfortunately, that never happened. Photographers did not bite because the Tri-Elmar had a handicap too unsavory to swallow. It was just too slow to be liked. Thus, any benefit it offered in variable focal length was canceled out by its uselessness in low light.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100. She blinked here too. So, I edited the photo. Also too much play in the aperture ring again 😖

I suspect people thought the variable focal length of 28-35-50mm was not worth the trouble, if it meant losing two stops from a fixed focal length Summicron at 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm. Besides, it is not as if one could not just step back or forward to frame the same variable angles of view with a fixed focal length lens. Thus, what is the point of the Tri-Elmar, if its entire selling point can be substituted by physical locomotion? Because of that, the Tri-Elmar is a hard sell. Most would rather shoot a fixed focal length Summilux and step back or forwards.

In my opinion, that is a shame. Regretfully, many photographers fail to realize that optimization in framing with a fixed focal length lens is not the same as framing with a variable focal length lens. That is to say - with a fixed focal length lens - one can only optimize either the subject or the background in framing. But in contrast - with a variable focal length lens - one can better optimize both the subject and the background in framing. For that reason, I can understand the rationale for variable focal length lenses - despite my predilection against them.

With that in mind, I decided to give my hated Tri-Elmar another chance. Maybe if I were more mindful, I could give it more consideration than shiitake mushrooms. With renewed intent, I dusted off my Tri-Elmar for that ol’ college try. I mean, how bad could it be? Low light can be remedied by fill flash, which I packed. And for good measure, I also scheduled my photowalk on a sunny day. Low light was not going to rain on my sunny parade. Unfortunately, my day in the sun with the Tri-Elmar did not go as imagined - regardless of how mindful I was.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 + Fill Flash

Maybe shooting Ektachome E100 was a tad too ambitious under the noonday sun - even for someone like me. What I did not take into consideration was how very slow the Tri-Elmar was when photographing people in the shade. Of course, I could have just taken photos in direct sunlight. But seriously, what kind of hapless imbecile would photograph anyone under direct sunlight? The noonday sun would completely drown out the colors on any photo taken. As such, I shot many photos in the shade at shutter speeds below the rule of reciprocity.

To make matters worse, the aperture ring on my Tri-Elmar had noticeable play. Over and over, I would knock my aperture setting off a couple of stops with a mere brush of my finger. This goofs-up the exposure, resulting in many photos ruined beyond post-processing intervention. On top of that, there is also that very pesky issue of barrel distortion along with that even peskier issue of unimpressive sharpness and micro-contrast. Looking at the photos on this photowalk, you would think that they were all shot with some no-name generic lens.

Mind you, a better example of the Tri-Elmar would have probably fared much better than my sorry excuse of a copy (although stories of worse examples abound). And if I were to have shot it with the Leica M10 (or its many variants), I would not have been handicapped by low ISO. That said, how different would my results have been if I shot a Tri-Elmar that was professionally cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted, on the M10? Admittedly, it would probably be better. However, I do not believe it would be noticeable enough to make a material difference.

Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100 @35mm — Leica 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar-M + Kodak Ektachrome E100

You can understand why I hate the Leica 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M as much as I hate shiitake mushrooms. The thing is, the Tri-Elmar, like shiitake mushrooms, is not all bad. It really isn’t. Some people actually like it. 🤷‍♂ And, I suppose that is the point. There is a material need for a lens like the Tri-Elmar for M-mount enthusiasts - especially for those wanting to optimize either subject isolation or environmental inclusivity without having to swap lenses or carry multiple cameras - so that the subject and background can both fill up the frame better.

Unfortunately, the Tri-Elmar is also not good either, in my opinion. I mean, it could have been. 🤔 Instead, it is this hateful lens. And, I can only swallow using it without gagging - if I am mindful that my hate is irrational. It really is. That said, why can’t the folks at Wetzlar design a better variable focal length M-mount lens? One that does not have barrel distortion. One with greater precision in sharpness. One with more micro-contrast? And, one in which the aperture ring does not have so much play after years of use. That is the question on my mind.

We all know the folks at Wetzlar can build a better variable focal length lens. Why won’t they? The world is ripe for a new Tri-Elmar. And, we know it is possible. One look at the upcoming close-focusing-next-iteration Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH and we know that electronic viewing can open up avenues for the folks at Wetzlar. If that is in the cards, why not make it faster. Better yet, why not make it a true zoom lens. And, why not expand the range of variable focal lengths from ultra-wide to normal or normal to telephoto? It can be done.

Mind you, doing any of that would bloat any hypothetical Tri-Elmar (or dream M-mount zoom lens) beyond the size of the now-since-discontinued Tri-Elmar. Perhaps, that is the post mortem lesson. In an effort to make the Tri-Elmar as compact as possible, the folks at Wetzlar had to sacrifice performance. That is really sad because the Tri-Elmar is not a compact lens, despite its attempt to pass-off as one. So for the sake of size, the Tri-Elmar turned out to be this hateful lens - much worse than shiitake mushrooms in my most mindful of opinion.

So, to the beancounters at Wetzlar, the ball is in your court. It is up to you to remedy that horrible abomination you created decades ago. That said, think of all the new product line possibilities by updating the Tri-Elmar? It really is a win-win situation. Just make it bigger so that optical performance will not be sacrificed - since there really isn’t a choice. If you must go big, you might as well own up to it.

As for shooting that hypothetical next generation Tri-Elmar or M-mount zoom equivalent on film, I will figure it out. Whatever challenges I face will be easier to swallow than the issues experienced on my Tri-Elmar. Frankly, I would rather eat shiitake mushrooms than shoot with my Tri-Elmar, since less mindfulness is required.

So much for mindfulness in promoting neural plasticity to overcome my irrational hate for this detestable lens. I guess the neural connections formed during my childhood needs more convincing from the folks at Wetzlar.

Thank you Kamila for accompanying me on yet another photowalk. Thankfully this time, I remembered asking you to remove your mask. It is just unfortunate that the aperture ring of my Tri-Elmar had so much play. Ruined so many shots 😖

Disclaimer

Oct 2 Lessons from the Leica 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M

Disclaimer

Oct 2 Lessons from the Leica 28-35-50mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M

Oct 12 Humanizing The Photo Taking Process

Sep 17 Rethinking Leica's 28mm Lenses