Picture Of The Tri-elmar 16/18/21

[Didier]

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

Mark
I understand what you mean, but personally I don't find this less confusing than the solution Leica has chosen.

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"...

It would be brillant if the finder gets the focal length information by the M8 body. Would be DSLR comfort...

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.

Hopefully. This is pure speculation by me, but maybe the new Tri-E can communicate each focal length individually to the M8, with a changing 6-bit code or mechanically. This could then eventually allow to inform the finder about the FL, as mentioned before.

We'll definitely know more when one has had it in the hands...

Didier

 

[Mark Norton]

Didier, how confusing can a finder be which has 5 focal length settings and displays the correct frame for each of those 5 according to the camera it's mounted on?

 

[rxmd]

I was hoping that we would get a 15 or so instead of the 24.

That would be a 12mm or so lens, accounting for the crop factor. I don't think there's much of a market with that, and the Cosina 12/5.6 has been available for quite some time.

Philipp

 

[MarcoS]

This lens, if you believed the leaked Italian price list information from Marco, was going to cost €2500; makes me think that price (and the €3800 for the body) were dealer prices and excluded VAT. Add 20% margin plus 16% German VAT to the lens and you get to €3480, call it €3500, $3800 + tax, £2400.

Hi Mark,

I asked again my dealer because I too found the prices rather "low" considering Leica trend, but he assured me that they were official list prices to the customers, italian 20% VAT included.
Anyway he said he should know something more (specs ?) this week.
I will let you informed.
It's more than ten years I deal with him and he's usually well aware of what he says.
Of course he could be wrong, but if he doesn't exactly know, from official sources, he doesn't bother with "rumors".

Hope he's right btw, otherwise it would be even more difficult for me to afford this amazing stuff 🙁
____________________

P.S. I'm following this forum since last month, but I couldn't post or reply for permission reasons 😕
I mailed Jorge but he didn't respond, so today I decided to subscribe with another username.
Hi all ! 🙂

Marco Squassabia

 

[MarcoS]

Anyway I too think the new Tri-Elmar price has someting wrong.
The Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 list price VAT included is 3.000 € here.
500 € less for a lens which is much more difficult to design is definitely odd, even if it's VAT excluded.
Maybe it's a "promo" 😛 price to enter the M8 experience...

 

[Matthew]

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.

Ah, my mistake...

 

[Mark Norton]

Well Marco, if they do it on special for €2500, I'll be there! It's all confusing, not helped by the fact that prices are typcially quoted with tax in Europe and without tax in the US.

 

[Bob Ross]

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

Mark, what we haven't seen yet is the rear of the finder😉 Maybe there is a switch that says "film/digital" and the viewfinder has your idea built in🙂
Bob

 

[Mark Norton]

Bob, you're right, we have this term "naff" in English (don't know if it crosses the Atlantic) but it would be naff to have to select 28mm on the finder after selecting 21mm on the lens. Come to think of it, that's the very definition of "naffness"!

As you saw, the same effect could be had by having two different eyepieces, just like I used to use when looking at rat's bits through a microscope when I was a kid.

I'd like that switch to be labelled "The Past" and "The Future"....

 

[Bob Ross]

Bob, you're right, we have this term "naff" in English (don't know if it crosses the Atlantic) but it would be naff to have to select 28mm on the finder after selecting 21mm on the lens. Come to think of it, that's the very definition of "naffness"!

As you saw, the same effect could be had by having two different eyepieces, just like I used to use when looking at rat's bits through a microscope when I was a kid.

I'd like that switch to be labelled "The Past" and "The Future"....

Anti-Naff switch😎
de-Naffer switcher🙄
The new finder is sort of a 21st century Imarect finder for wide angles.
Bob

 

[Ben Z]

As for the lens, like any new Leica lens at today's prices I'm not even giving it a serious thought. If I spring big bucks it'll be for an M8, but for lenses I'll use my Voitlander 15mm to "replace" a 21 (with a 21 finder), and the 12mm to "replace" the 15 (with the 15's finder) and from there I've got Leica lenses to cover.

As for the new finder, the main attraction to me of M Leicas is their diminutive size and uncomplicated operation. Mounting an ungainly contraption the size of a Rollei 35 on top of it and then having to fiddle with not one but two dials with tiny numberings? Not for me.

 

[jaapv]

I'm with Ben here...

 

[MP Guy]

I think I will just buy the Zeiss 15mm and stick with my 21.

 

[LCT]

The 16-28 finder is kind of a stopgap i guess.
Smells like if Leica were to launch a wide version or the M8 with 16/18/21+ frame lines.

 

[rvaubel]

If I spring big bucks it'll be for an M8, but for lenses I'll use my Voitlander 15mm to "replace" a 21 (with a 21 finder), and the 12mm to "replace" the 15 (with the 15's finder) and from there I've got Leica lenses to cover.

As for the new finder, the main attraction to me of M Leicas is their diminutive size and uncomplicated operatio.

Yep, that's me too. Although that does leave me a little F stop challanged at the wide end. I would consider spending big bucks on a 17mm F2.8 or better yet F2.0.
The gap that needs to be filled is the 1.3x equivelent of the 21mm F2.8.

Actually Olympus made a perfectly wonderful 21mmF2.0 for there OM series SLR. If they could make a compact, retrofocus, fast superwide for a SLR, why can't Leica or Zeiss, or Cosina do the same?

Rex

 

[Mark Norton]

Any one of you photoshop gurus care to put the finder and the M8 together so that we can see what it might look like?

 

[Captain]

I think this lens and finder are a great idea. I dont really need superwides to be fast as you can hand hold them in lower light. The finder looks pretty inovative. It reminds me of days when Leica used to make some weird and interesting accessory to do just about anything and gave them all funny names. This finder is worthy of them and deserves a funny name of its own!

The new lens doesnt look that large really, I wonder what size filters it takes? (If any as the aperture indication mark is on the hood which suggests the hood doesnt come off to attach filters.)

 

[jaapv]

Yep, that's me too. Although that does leave me a little F stop challanged at the wide end. I would consider spending big bucks on a 17mm F2.8 or better yet F2.0.
The gap that needs to be filled is the 1.3x equivelent of the 21mm F2.8.

Actually Olympus made a perfectly wonderful 21mmF2.0 for there OM series SLR. If they could make a compact, retrofocus, fast superwide for a SLR, why can't Leica or Zeiss, or Cosina do the same?

Rex

because the distance film-lens is much smaller on a RF. BTW I still say: why no goggles??

 

[Alec]

because the distance film-lens is much smaller on a RF. BTW I still say: why no goggles??

Much as I like the goggles concept, qui peut le plus peut le moins, so I don't understand why retrofocus is not possible on a RF!

 

[Mark Norton]

The new lens doesnt look that large really, I wonder what size filters it takes? (If any as the aperture indication mark is on the hood which suggests the hood doesnt come off to attach filters.)

A number of other lenses have the aperture mark replaced by one on the hood when the hood is fitted. It's possible of course that the front element protrudes so that the lens hood is permanently fitted to protect it, a bit like the Nikon 14mm f2.8 which is a monster. In that case, maybe filters are not possible...