As Tom has written:
'The decision is ultimately going to come down to what you're comfortable with and an honest evaluation of the kinds of pictures you're going to take, not the kinds of pictures other people take.'

I find the Tri-Elmar to be ideal for landscapes, and for travelling light when combined with either the 35/1.4 or the 50/1.4 with the possible addition of a 90. I wouldn't get a Tri-Elmar in preference to a fast prime though. Having a Tri-Elmar, but not the 28/2 for example, would not feel right for me.

The original version seems like comparatively good value second-hand - I was offered an original version at a very good price and decided to see how I liked it. The focal length click stops and the frame selector are not very positive on my example, but it is easy to develop the habit of turning the f/l selector ring just past the click stop and then back, rather than straight to the click stop. I've never had it 'fall out' of the selected frame. From that description you can see that my example has 'Leica Precision' printed right through. It is a fine lens optically of course.

The original version has no depth-of-field scales. I find this to be a minor inconvenience at times, but it is easy enough to carry a paper copy in my bag for the times when I want something better than my bestest WAG.

The lens front is better protected from stray light and from physical damage on the original version than on the new version. This feature alone actually makes the original version more attractive to me than the revised version.