Arbo68 Posted February 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted February 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks to "Colt Seavers" - here is the link to the new LEICA M 3.8/18 SUPER-ELMAR! Cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 Hi Arbo68, Take a look here Leica m 3.8/18 super-elmar. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kdemas Posted February 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted February 13, 2009 Interesting, thanks for the link. This looks like a nice competitor to the Zeiss 18/4 Distagon. I look forward to learning more! Kent Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted February 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted February 13, 2009 that's cool... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikFive Posted February 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted February 13, 2009 Looks nice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted February 13, 2009 Share #5 Posted February 13, 2009 Doesn't look very telecentric. Implications for FF M9?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 13, 2009 Share #6 Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) John: Good question. The adding of a prime lens below 21mm seems to imply the M8 format will be around for a while. OTOH the moderate max. aperture may mean it can be "telecentric" in a smallish package. Interesting that the store's specs only give angles of view for the M8 format - a "D"-only lens? Looks like probably series 7 filters that require the lens shade to stay in place (sigh!) I.E. about a 49mm filter front. I wish Leica could have squeaked it out to f/3.4 'sted of f/3.8 - but maybe there is a 16 f/2.8 (or to fantasize, f/2.0 or 1.4!!) ASPH to follow. For me, a tough call as to whether this could replace my 15 f/4.5 - 21 f/2.8 combo. I have a feeling I'd always being wishing for either wider or faster in any given situation. But if, like the 24 f/3.8, it is already at peak performance wide open.... Same price as a 35 'cron for twice the field of view (4x the area)? Not bad! [edit] I might just add that this is the widest PRIME lens Leica has ever designed themselves for normal photography. Their 15mm lenses were/are Zeiss or Schneider designs, the 16 R fisheye was Minolta, and the WATE is a zoom. There was a 12.5mm Photar lens strictly for macro work on a bellows or extension-tube. Edited February 13, 2009 by adan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted February 13, 2009 Share #7 Posted February 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I remember well a prime 18mm lens was one of the most wanted lens in this forum's wishlist. Many asked for a while to have a competitor to Zeiss's 18mm lens, with RF coupling. Maybe the decision to make such a lens was a consequence of that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 13, 2009 Share #8 Posted February 13, 2009 Maurizio: Quite right. It was also in my Photokina 2008 predictions, so I "only" missed by 6 months and one photo exhibition. 8^) The more I think about it, that's a pretty good price for a Leica Super-wide....not that far off the "Summarit" line when one considers the field of view. WIDER than a 21 @ 2/3rds the price?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted February 13, 2009 Share #9 Posted February 13, 2009 Can anybody explain why it would be better to get the 18/3.8 rather than the 21/2.8. I somehow get it, then again I don't. At least not from a 3mm viewpoint and the loss of light. It might turn out to be a fantastic lens in sharpness, contrast and very easy to use a deep range of the photo will be sharp (which is what I like about the 21/3.4). But why was it on the wish list so bad? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted February 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted February 13, 2009 Yes Adan, I was right now thinking to buy a 24 mm lens, and my first choice was the 24elmarit... than the pictures from the new Elmar24 came out, and now the 18mm f/3.8... I have something to spend my sleepless nights on now... but I'm pleased as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted February 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted February 13, 2009 Can anybody explain why it would be better to get the 18/3.8 rather than the 21/2.8. I somehow get it, then again I don't. At least not from a 3mm viewpoint and the loss of light. It might turn out to be a fantastic lens in sharpness, contrast and very easy to use a deep range of the photo will be sharp (which is what I like about the 21/3.4). But why was it on the wish list so bad? Many asked for a "cheaper" ultra wide lens, and actually the 21 is the equiv. FOV of 28 on the M8, and it's not even cheap. Anyway, a 21 is a 21, and an 18mm lens is a totally different creative tool IMHO. Many members found the WATE a good lens but not that practical because of the need to select the angle and correction on the menu. That's why many seemed to ask for such a lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted February 13, 2009 Can anybody explain why it would be better to get the 18/3.8 rather than the 21/2.8. It depends on what lenses you already own. The difference between the 18 and 21 is the same order as the difference between the 24 and 28. I don't think anyone would suggest that the 24 should stop production, whether you need one, or the other, or both will depend on what lenses you own. In my case I already have a 24mm Elmarit. The 21mm is a bit too close to that to consider taking that and the 24mm out together. The 18mm adds a bit more between it and the 24mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted February 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted February 13, 2009 Can anybody explain why it would be better to get the 18/3.8 rather than the 21/2.8. I somehow get it, then again I don't. At least not from a 3mm viewpoint and the loss of light.I do not make a choice between 18 and 21mm, i take both. Here a picture taken with a 18mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/36095-zeiss-18-distagon-question.html#post377182 and here, about same place with a 21mm and the mark of a 24mm inside. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m8/70747-elmarit-2-8-21-mm-m8.html#post735184 Make your own opinion about the 3mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 13, 2009 Share #14 Posted February 13, 2009 I'm starting to wonder what can do a poor guy who already has 15 (CV) and 21 asph... ... maybe sell both and take 12,5 + this new 18 .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted February 13, 2009 Share #15 Posted February 13, 2009 Oh no Luigi... just fill the gap between...:D:D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) Can anybody explain why it would be better to get the 18/3.8 rather than the 21/2.8. Same reason some prefer a 21 and some prefer a 24 (or one could ask, Why did Leica bother to add the 24 focal length to the range at all, after 45 years with 21 and 28 clearly being "sufficient"?). I find a 24 (traditional FOV) somewhat cramped and prefer a 21 - others find a 21 too "radical" and prefer a 24. Note that 3mm difference between a 24 and a 21 is a smaller difference (14% vs. 17%) than the 3mm difference between a 21 and an 18. Why the 18 over a 21? - more in the picture from a given distance, more WA "stretch" and "perspective" effects (which can sell pictures, even if purists don't like them), more DOF But why was it on the wish list so bad? The alternative was a rather large, very expensive WATE that required fiddling with the menus every time it was mounted, even if one only used one preferred focal length. Or a lens that just wasn't wide enough Or a lens that was either too wide or too slow (C/V 15 or 12) and in any event (if coded) still required messing with the stupid WATE menu. As I said, I'm with Luigi. I will have to handle and shoot with the 18 SE before deciding if I can give up 2/3rds stop for the wider view (remember my thread on "the heck with the crop factor"?) or just stick with my older 21. BTW - I'll give a shiny medal to the first one to post the 6-bit coding pattern for the Super-Elmar, so I can paint it on my Milich-mount 15 c/v. 8^) I guess I'll need a firmware upgrade to recognize it, too. Edited February 13, 2009 by adan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 13, 2009 Share #17 Posted February 13, 2009 It will be interesting to find out a bit more about this lens, but my take on it is a bit too little too late. The Zeiss 18 is a proven performer and less than half the price (even with a Milich bayonet swap). Why Leica can't came out with a DX line of lenses is beyond me - two years ago this would have flown off the shelves if it was a DX 18 f/2.8 or f/2.0. They really need to stop worrying about covering all bases (ie film users and a future FF M9/10) and give users what they need now. A year and a half ago I would have been all over this lens but now I'll stick with my Zeiss. I wish Leica would suck it up and give us something revolutionary lens wise that one doesn't need to be a sheik to afford (ie the 21/24 Luxes). That said, I'm sure this will be the best performing 18 ever (or 24 however you look at it). That said, I would watch for some great deals on used Zeiss 18's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 13, 2009 Share #18 Posted February 13, 2009 Why Leica can't came out with a DX line of lenses is beyond me Because it goes against the philosophy at Leica, where it's still possible to use a 70+ year old lens on their latest digital M camera. Also having spent several hundreds, or thousands, of pounds/dollars/Euros how would it feel to realise that your lenses would no longer work with a full frame M? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted February 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted February 14, 2009 Hi I don't follow why you think this lens will not be suitable for a 24x36 frame (film or sensor). There will need to be a firmware update, clearly. That should provide the right correction. My ZM f/4 18 works fine on both M8 and M7. Filter size there is 58mm, which is not curently made in the Leica UV/IR. From the site picture I expect this lens to accept normal screw in filters that will fit neatly inside the externally threaded lens hood. That's how its done for the Elmar 24 and the illustration of this lens looks just the same. John: Good question. The adding of a prime lens below 21mm seems to imply the M8 format will be around for a while. OTOH the moderate max. aperture may mean it can be "telecentric" in a smallish package. Interesting that the store's specs only give angles of view for the M8 format - a "D"-only lens? Looks like probably series 7 filters that require the lens shade to stay in place (sigh!) I.E. about a 49mm filter front. I wish Leica could have squeaked it out to f/3.4 'sted of f/3.8 - but maybe there is a 16 f/2.8 (or to fantasize, f/2.0 or 1.4!!) ASPH to follow. For me, a tough call as to whether this could replace my 15 f/4.5 - 21 f/2.8 combo. I have a feeling I'd always being wishing for either wider or faster in any given situation. But if, like the 24 f/3.8, it is already at peak performance wide open.... Same price as a 35 'cron for twice the field of view (4x the area)? Not bad! [edit] I might just add that this is the widest PRIME lens Leica has ever designed themselves for normal photography. Their 15mm lenses were/are Zeiss or Schneider designs, the 16 R fisheye was Minolta, and the WATE is a zoom. There was a 12.5mm Photar lens strictly for macro work on a bellows or extension-tube. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 14, 2009 Share #20 Posted February 14, 2009 Geoff: Working your comments backwards... If the 18 will take a standard E49 filter that will be great. I was going by the specs of the 21 and 24 'luxes, which this 18 resembles more in terms of its "stepped" lens hood rather than the 24 f/3.8's straight hood. Your 18 (and this 18) may work well on 24 x 36 film and 18 x 27 silicon - but that is no indication that either lens will work well on 24 x 36 silicon. The store selling it lists the angles of view on the M8, but does not mention the angles of coverage for 24 x 36. That just struck me as strange. Do they think film users (24x36) in general are too small a market in these times to bother adding 2 lines of web coding? When Leica makes the official announcement next week, these little mysteries will be cleared up. Charles99: There is an interesting assumption in your post: "They really need to stop worrying about covering all bases (ie film users and a future FF M9/10) and give users what they need now." Out of curiosity, what proportion of Leica M users do you think use M8s, and what proportion use film? Over 1,000,000 film Ms sold over the years, and maybe 25,000 M8s so far? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.