Picture Of The Tri-elmar 16/18/21

[Mark Norton]

I agree the focal length range is relatively limited but that will have made it easier to design, still a huge technical challenge to maintain optical quality though. Key thing is that M8 users can go as wide as existing film users and if it really is a FF lens, Photokina is going to have something new for them as well.

 

[StuartR]

21, 24 and 28 are the classic Leica wide angles, so it makes sense to me that they are doing it this way. I imagine if they tried to go even wider, it might have made the lens too large. But anyway, I have never really felt the need to go much wider than 21, so I probably will not get this lens unless I get the M8.

 

[visiondr]

It looks like the finder has a distance scale reading:

-- 0.5
-- 0.7
-- 1.0
-- 2.0
-- ∞

m

Ron

 

[Mark Norton]

Yes, I think you're right...

 

[Matthew]

I didn't mean that the lens is limited as such but I suppose I had assumed (or hoped) that it would provide 35mm equivelants of 21, 28 and maybe something even wider rather than the 24.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but the new Tri-Elmar provides exactly that: the equivalent field of view of 21, 24 & 28mm in 24x36 terms.

 

[Rico]

I recognize the difficulty of designing one for a zoom, but that DOF scale is almost undecipherable, and ugly to boot. Given the ultrawide coverage, I would be satisfied with hyperfocal marks for the three FLs.

 

[Didier]

It looks like the finder has a distance scale reading:
-- 0.5
-- 0.7
-- 1.0
-- 2.0
-- ∞
m

Agree. So the the bottom wheel is probably to lock the viewer in the hotshoe (you wouldn't let that piece drop off your camera, would you?...)

... and if it really is a FF lens.

As confirmed by several Leica sellers, it is FF for shure.
Didier

 

[Didier]

I'de rather have a 18mm F2.8 myself....Rex

Rex

Though it was me who posted that picture, personally I would not want to have such a Tri-Elmar. Too big, too expensive, and the focal lengths are too close together. A single 18 would do it for me, too. But a 18mm/f2.8 might be too large for my taste and my purse (like the 15mm Zeiss Ikon).

Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest had announced a 18mm/f4.0 Cosina Voigtlander LTM lens in late 2004. He said he had seen a prototype of it in the factory in Japan, and it's as compact as the CV 21mm/f4.0 and rangefinder-coupled. The project has been delayed at Cosina because of the intensive collaboration on the Zeiss Ikon projects. But it is not dead.

THIS could be my "Single-ELMAR" 18mm.

Didier

 

[Mark Norton]

So, do we think this has a single optical magnification, by my reckoning something like 0.4 or do we think the optical magnification changes as you change the focal length, as on the current finder. To me, it looks fixed, unlikely that little focal length knob would zoom the finder.

I think it would also need 7 frames - in FF terms, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32, 37 - the first two would be used when mounted on a film camera, the last two when mounted on a digital camera.

 

[garethc]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but the new Tri-Elmar provides exactly that: the equivalent field of view of 21, 24 & 28mm in 24x36 terms.

Yes, what I meant was that I was hoping for 21 and 28 but not the in between 24. I was hoping that we would get a 15 or so instead of the 24.

 

[ChrisN]

Just a thought: I understand that the Tri-Elmar was originally built not as a zoom, but as a lens that can be adjusted to one of three distinct focal lengths, because of the need to match up with the framelines available in the M body.

Yet here we have a sophisticated separate viewfinder. I would have thought, by now, that it would be possible to have an infinitely-variable set of framelines projected electronically within the viewfinder, able to accommodate the adjustments within a zoom range. Too radical?

There would be a communication issue, with the finder needing to read the focal length from the zoom, but I'm sure that could be managed. How will the M8 read the focal length of this new lens for writing the exif data?

 

[Didier]

So, do we think this has a single optical magnification, by my reckoning something like 0.4 or do we think the optical magnification changes as you change the focal length, as on the current finder. To me, it looks fixed, unlikely that little focal length knob would zoom the finder.

I too belive it's a fixed optics and only the framelines change. A wiedeangle zoom finder would be difficult, if not impossible, to produce in that size and with Leica's claim of sharp- and brightness.

IMO it would be wishable that the focal length is indicated in the finder.

I think it would also need 7 frames - in FF terms, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32, 37 - the first two would be used when mounted on a film camera, the last two when mounted on a digital camera.

No. The fullframe focal lengths 16-18-21 multiplied with the M8's crop factor 1.33 makes 21-24-28. The 21 mark is usable for both 21 (fullframe) and 16 (cropped).

Didier

 

[Didier]

There would be a communication issue, with the finder needing to read the focal length from the zoom, but I'm sure that could be managed. How will the M8 read the focal length of this new lens for writing the exif data?

When the focal length is changed, the lens will probably change the 6-bit code (on M8) as well as the mechanical frameline switch on older M cameras (like the classic Tri-Elmar). Possibly one of the reasons why this lens is not that cheap, btw...
Didier

 

[Mark Norton]

Didier, if I'm paying $500+ for this thing, I would not expect to have to set the finder knob to 21 when I've mounted my $4000 lens and selected 16mm. I'd expect to set it to the same setting as on the lens - 16 - and have this "Universal Finder" select the correct frame which would happen to the frame used for a 21mm lens on a film camera.

That's why I think it needs 7 frames:


Frame#..1....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7

Film:.....16...18...21...24...28

Digital:...............16...18...21...24...28

The finder needs to be able to find out, or be told, whether it's on a film or digital body. Perhaps we need a hot shoe "lug"...

The existing Tri-Elmar has a single coding to identify the lens and could use the bayonet lug to identify the focal length in use. I suppose the new Tri-Elmar would do the same.

 

[AndyPiper]

Mark: Frames for 24 and 28 lenses cropped on the M8 (32, 37mm equiv.) are already included in the camera itself, no? (Or so we hear and surmise).

Why make the accesory finder more complicated/large than it already is to duplicate them? This finder is for use with this lens - with 3 frames to match, in each of the two formats, minus 1 for the overlap at 21mm = 5 frames total.

Chris N. Electronic framelines would only 'exist' when the power is on - I'd want to be able to estimate framing without burning up battery power keeping the LCD lines running in between shots.

If photographers want zooms, they should buy a Nikon D80. Rangefinders are different, and trying to turn them into pseudo-SLRs is like trying to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

8^)

Me - I'm gonna see how well or badly my C/V 15mm does before I make up my mind about the Tri-Superwide-Elmar (ASPH - I assume, although the markings aren't visible). And also compare it to my fixed 21.

I have a suspicion that the very long length means it is a telecentric digital-friendly optical design, and may show significant improvement in the corners vis-a-vis darkening, fringing, and resolution - then again, it may not be enough to persuade me.

I'm sure there is a lever, as with the 28-35-50 TE, to signal the camera which focal length has been chosen. Moot as far as internal frames are concerned, but it will let the camera/software/EXIF know, in combination with a fixed Zebra-code, whether 16, 18, or 21 was in use.

Rico: But you would need hyperfocal marks for ever aperture at every focal length - plus an explanation in the instruction book for people used to full DOF scales. And HF marks are only useful if you are including infinity in your required DoF. Lots of people just want to be able to get everthing sharp from 1 meter to , say, 5 meters, without needing the whole range out to infinity (and a smaller f/stop and slower shutter speed).

 

[Nachkebia]

It is so dissapointing to have all this confusion with crop factor, just because technology is not mature enough and it is even more dissaponting that leica forces itself to put out not mature.

 

[jaapv]

I'm surprised they didn't simply use goggles in the true Leica tradition.

 

[AndyPiper]

It is so dissapointing to have all this confusion with crop factor, just because technology is not mature enough and it is even more dissaponting that leica forces itself to put out not mature.

I sympathize - but frankly if Leica waited until the technology was mature enough to allow full frame with M lenses, it would be 5 years dead and buried.

An M8 now, with its crop factor, with its weird finder, with its new and expensive lens - is better than no Leica at all.

 

[Nachkebia]

AndyPiper : I meant not dissapointing of Leica, but dissapointing of market demand, what we ask for is what we get don`t forget, I mean look at jaapv 😀 😀 😀 😀

 

[Mark Norton]

Andy, how about exchangeable eye-pieces to increase the magnification by 4/3 for digital?