Tri-Elmar-M in use
My experience with the Leica M system dates back to the late 70s as a TV and film "stills" photographer. My regular Nikons were too noisy in studios after working practices changed... not mine, but the studios. When I worked as a designer in television in the 60s stills were taken during proper full-dress rehearsals, but by the mid-70s directors would "take" each scene from the start of the day on the assumption that it might be the best performance... if not the video tape was wiped and reused. Thus, the near-silent Leica M became the best camera to use without ire from the director's box above. And of course the other factor which suited stills photographers was that the M was far easier to focus under the (often less than) subtle studio lighting.

So there I was with Leica's 28 Elmarit, 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons constantly being juggled between an M4-2 an M4-P, trying to do my job without distracting the actors by moving in front of their eye-line. I never wished for a Tri-Elmar in those days (the option never occurred to me) but I think it would be a very useful TV studio tool today, despite its f/4 maximum aperture, given that film technology has improved considerably in the past decade or so.

However, because Leica M users don't use tripods (I know, I know, a tripod is worth a couple of stops and puts an ordinary lens sometimes on par or better than a much higher specified but hand-held example) it follows that they load their camera with fast film. They take pictures on the move, candidly, sometimes in places where AF SLR cameras would begin to need "focus assist" from a projected IR beam. That is the beauty of the M and why so many photojournalists use them.

And there lies the rub... the Tri-Elmar is too slow at f/4 for those applications where the Leica M excels... the focusing isn't affected because you view and focus through a bright viewfinder, not a prism and lens, but the corresponding shutter speed you have to set on the camera comes down and down to the point where you have to use faster and faster film to compensate.

On the other hand, for outdoor applications when the light is inevitably more favorable having three focal lengths in one package is extremely convenient. In fact I've changed my style... I've almost become a one-camera-one-lens-at-a-time photographer, thoroughly enjoying and learning from the extra effort required to see with one lens and record an image or two of some consequence to me. So although the Tri-Elmar may make life a little easier with its options of wide to standard views, conversely it offers a choice of views which may distract from the goal of the 35mm or 50mm "viewing" purist of whom there are many in the Leica camp. To decide if the lens is for you, you really have to try it out first... not an easy option with a price tag of around £1,700 (£1,850 in late 2006).

Problem areas?
First I have to describe some operational difficulties. There are three milled rings on the lens barrel... for focusing, focal length selection and aperture. On all modern Leica M optics the aperture ring is in the forward position on the lens and the focusing ring near to the body - so no problems there. On the Tri-Elmar the focal length adjustment ring is in the middle position... and this does take getting used to because it's probably the least used ring in the most convenient position... in the center of the lens barrel. Also the three focal lengths are not in a sequential 28-35-50. Due to the constructional constraints imposed on the designers they are in an unnatural 28-50-35 sequence and so take some time getting used to.

When launched the lens was only available in black finish and consequently, perhaps, the focus, focal length and aperture ring actions are not quite as smooth as with a silver or titanium model due to the different materials used in their construction. However, one advantage of black M lenses is that they are between 75gms and 200gms lighter than silver and titanium examples due to the use of different, lighter alloys necessary for black coating.

When all is said and done the accuracy and ease of focusing of an M Leica is paramount. Those well-known photojournalists of the past 30 years or so whose work one cannot help but admire - Henri Cartier-Bresson, Bruce Davidson, Ralph Gibson, Eugene Smith and others spring to mind - all use or used the M intuitively by having the lens in-focus by the time the camera is / was raised to their eye. They know their equipment so it becomes one with them... they know that when the focusing tab on a 50mm or 35mm Summicron is in a certain position then the focus is set for, say, ten feet and that the image is going to be spot on... depth-of-field taking care of the rest of course! Photojournalists don't really use the viewfinders of Leica Ms as amateurs would, so I think that fiddling about with the Tri-Elmar's focusing, and view selection, would demean the essence of the camera for them.

Though not directly related I would like to quote Ansel Adams, "...constant practice is necessary to master a craft - exactitude can be attained only through relentless repetition," ...so learn how to use your equipment and then you won't feel it's getting between you and the subject.

But these, what I call initial operational difficulties would not be the case for travelers for whom the lens would be the answer to the usual problems of what to carry, where and when. In more casual situations than the hard world of photojournalism or street photography the Tri-Elmar is in its element offering a choice of views which on paper don't appear too varied but in the viewfinder are more than enough for most people.