New M lenses offered with the M8?

Nemo said:
The new lenses will be 17mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and a new Tri-Elmar.
Click to expand...
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
 
jaapv said:
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Olympus made a simply stunning 21mm F2.0 for the OM not to long ago. I said F2.0. Again F2.0 and thats for a full frame camera. The lens is also compact, befitting the form factor of a rangefinder camera.
So if Olympus can design a 21mm F2.0 that doesn't vignette(much), why can't Leica do the same for a 17mm f2.8 crop factor lens? In fact they should be able to make a FF lens that meets those specifications.
The OM lens is available used for about $1000 . If someone had an an OM to M adapter, I would pick up that lens in a heartbeat. Well maybe in enough heartbeats to round up $1000 !!

Rex
 
jaapv said:
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
Click to expand...


Leica has said that these new lenses will be optimized for film as well.
 
I would want the uwa 17 or 18mm

I would want the uwa 17 or 18mm

but couldn't afford it. I have an 18mm Sigma for my SLR and it's a necessary lens size for landscape photography where you sometimes can't back up, or where the barrel distortion effect is desired.

MP/CLE said:
The best I have been able to divine has been a stand alone 17 mm f2.8 and a tri-elmar digital equivalent of a 21-28-35 at f/4.0. Supposedly these are the new lenses available with the M8 which will make up the difference between the normal M lenses and the 1.33 crop factor.

The 17mm will replace the 21 mm in the lineup... I hope all the other lenses fall into place with the M8.
Click to expand...
 
I heard some rumors:
tri elmar wide 4.0 15mm 21mm 24mm (i'd prefer 15-21-28)
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
---
and
----
an afforadabe VERY COMPACT 3,5 / 28. cost: under 1.000 euro. now the last one would make sense. at that slowness, they can make a brilliant lens very compact (co collapsing needed) it would be a nice short standard lens. it would keep the kit price nice and low. it would not spoil the market for anything expensive and fast (like heavy discounting the 35 cron would)

also, the hermes and mont blanc toting new clientele would easily make dicent pix with this slower lens;-)

so this one i believe immediately. and i'm disappointed by it.
 
willemvelthoven said:
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
-.
Click to expand...

There is no space under or on top of the flat of the Trielmar's flange for some elaborate dot-switching mechanism. If we hypothesize that the firmware contains a "library" of lens parameters that make some kind of difference in the way each image is processed depending on the lens design, then upon reading the Trielmar's code it would have to "consult" the frameline cam position to determe which of the 3 focal lengths is currently in use. Until this is confirmed I remain highly doubtful Leica would go to that length just for one lens, and am more convinced that all the codes will do is tell the camera what lens to specify in the EXIF data.
 
I agree there needs to be a less expensive "starter" lens equivalent to the 50mm Summicron to be offered as a kit lens; 35mm would be the obvious choice but maybe it could be 28mm. With the old 28mm Elmarit discontinued, there's a hole to fill.

I'm enthusiastic about the current Tri-Elmar and it would be good if a new lens could provide more than one focal length. Need not be 3 of course, though Duo-Elmar is odd sounding.

The problem with any new lenses shorter than 28mm is how the viewfinder is going to handle the frames. Currently, there's a dedicated finder for 21 and 24 (and 28) whoch will not of course give the correct framing with the new camera. It all depends on what frames are offered together with finder magnification. The current 21mm activates the same frame line as the 28mm (and the 90mm) where actually there's a spare "slot" with the 35mm frame if the 135mm is dropped.

I agree with Ben Z that the Tri-Elmar will not switch the pattern and will instead work as he suggests. That works with the existing Tri-Elmar because the 28, 35 and 50mm focal lengths all use different viewfinder frame lever settings.


willemvelthoven said:
I heard some rumors:
tri elmar wide 4.0 15mm 21mm 24mm (i'd prefer 15-21-28)
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
---
and
----
an afforadabe VERY COMPACT 3,5 / 28. cost: under 1.000 euro. now the last one would make sense. at that slowness, they can make a brilliant lens very compact (co collapsing needed) it would be a nice short standard lens. it would keep the kit price nice and low. it would not spoil the market for anything expensive and fast (like heavy discounting the 35 cron would).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rvaubel said:
I disagree. Olympus made a simply stunning 21mm F2.0 for the OM not to long ago. I said F2.0. Again F2.0 and thats for a full frame camera. The lens is also compact, befitting the form factor of a rangefinder camera.


Rex
Click to expand...

Correct: for film and SLR. That is a totally different cup of tea. The main problem with designing a wideangle lens for a RF sensor camera is that the acceptance angle of the microlenses of the sensor is limited as opposed to film. Oblique rays, of which a wideangle lens has plenty towards the corners and the edges will not be registered fully causing vignetting. A RF camera hat a shorter film/sensor -lens distance than a SLR, making the angle even more acute.So you see the lens design for a RF/sensor wideangle is something that only the most advanced design techniques can master. And to optimize it for film as well, where the requirements towards the edges are totally different is something only a firm like Leica may be able to do, as this will require the edge rays of the lens to be more perpendicular to the film/ sensor instead of creating a kind of reverse vignetting by relatively enlarging the central pupil of the lens compared to the edges which is the current trick with specific "digital"lenses.
Edit: Oh-I forgot to mention: a 17 mm is about ten times as difficult to design as a 21, and designing within the physical limitations of the RF an VF windows complicates thing even far more......
 
Last edited:
I need a f/2 lens for my M8.
I would like to buy a 28mm f/2 (equiv. 35mm f/2), but the price is too high (2700 euros).
Therefore, I will go for a 35mm f/2 (equiv. 50mm f/2). I hope Leica will offer a rebate to the price of that lens if it is purchased with the M8.
A different possibility would be a new Summicron 50mm. The actual design is a bit too old. Is the only classic not based on aespherical lenses. The price of a new Summicron could be lower than the price of the actual 35mm f/2 APSH, but the FOV would be strange (66mm equivalent). It could be interesting if the price is adequate.
Leica need a kit lens for the M8 at a reasonable cost and with a maximum aperture of f/2 or, alternatively, some kind of coupon-rebate program aplicable to any lens.
 
Before we get too excited, Bill on the Leica forum has pointed out this might be the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8, and not a Leica lens. The promo simply says "Leica M mount", not "Leica lens". It's a huge lens, and hugely expensive, €3000+.
 
Nemo said:
I need a f/2 lens for my M8.
A different possibility would be a new Summicron 50mm. The actual design is a bit too old. Is the only classic not based on aespherical lenses. .
Click to expand...

There is very little, if any, room for improving the 50 summicron.
What would ASPH add in your opinion ... ? More sharpness & contrast?
I would not call that an improvement!
Just curious what you want improved with a 50 Summicron!
 
Last edited:
As far as i remember standard lenses have always been 50mm or 40mm (CL) lenses at Leica.
Then i'd expect a 35mm lens for the digital M due to the crop factor.
An affordable remake of the pre-asph 35/2 4th version would be great but the sales of the asph would suffer i guess...
Best,
LCT
 
Yes, the 24 has never been on my radar and as soon as you go shorter than 28, you hit the issue of frame lines. This is the big unanswered question about the Digital M - what will the magnification be and what frame lines will be supported. If we accept the 135 frame is going to be dropped, that leaves a spare frame position which could be used by the 21mm (28 in "old money") but currently, the 21 brings up the 28/90 frame.

My lenses are going off to Solms tomorrow for zebra-dising, and it will be interesting if the new 21mm mount changes the viewfinder frame selection.

As for the 24, I have no idea!
 
There is very little, if any, room for improving the 50 summicron.
What would ASPH add in your opinion ... ? More sharpness & contrast?
I would not call that an improvement!
Just curious what you want improved with a 50 Summicron!
Click to expand...

Well, Peter Karbe, the actual chief of the optics department at Leica, made a study on how to improve the Summicron 50mm. He designed a Summicron ASPH which had stunning performance. However, Leica considered that design not adequate for production. I don't know why, but I suppose the new version would be more expensive, and the actual Summicron already was exceptional.
The research made by Karbe was employed as a basis for many other APSH revisions of classic desings. That basic new design was so powerful that it allowed a great improvement in performance in Summiluxes or wide-angle lenses.
Due to these reasons, I think Leica could redesign the classic Summicron actually, many years after the study of Karbe. The goal would be a better performance, or a similar performance at a lower cost.
 
Last edited:
Olympus zuikor 21mm F2.0

Olympus zuikor 21mm F2.0

jaapv said:
Correct: for film and SLR. That is a totally different cup of tea.
Edit: Oh-I forgot to mention: a 17 mm is about ten times as difficult to design as a 21, and designing within the physical limitations of the RF an VF windows complicates thing even far more......
Click to expand...
You too are correct. But my point was a RETROFOCUSING lens has beem designed that is compact. I am not married to non-retrofocusing designs in rangefinders. they are generally more compact and thats why I like them. In this case a SLR design lens meets the compactness requirement of a rangefinder. So why not use it? It avoids all the problems you mentioned above inherent in a a non-retrofocus design.
Maybe using the same approach a 17mm F2.8 could be developed. I don't know how Qlympus did it but their retrofocus design worked AND it was compact.

Somebody please 'splain it" to me

Rex
 
I am not interested in a superwide lens for the M8.
My basic set will be a standard-like lens (28mm or 35mm) and a short tele (50mm, 75mm or 90mm).
I would like to buy the 90mm f/2, buy I am not sure. This lens can be difficult to focus and frame (120mm equiv.). The 75mm f/2 is an interesting alternative (100mm equiv.). The 50mm lenses provide a moderate tele FOV, but I can be too short for a tele and too narrow for a standard lens.
Whether the basic kit is based on two lenses, the ideal solution would be some distance between them. For instance, 28mm and 75mm (equiv. 35 and 100mm FOVs), or a less expesive solution based on 35mm and 75mm (equiv. 50mm and 100mm). The less expensive starting kit, based on a single lens, would be a simple 35mm (equiv. 50mm) or a 50mm (equiv. 66mm). The 35mm or 50mm lens is just in the middle, but there would be a hole at the wide side and a hole at the tele side.
I think the correct strategy is to wait for more information about framelines, magnification of the finder, etc.
My key question is... 35mm or 50mm (equiv. 50mm-66mm)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom