Proposal Bi-Elmar-M

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would like to ask you all about a lens which seems to interesting for travel. Very often I have in my bag à 35Lux and the Macro-Elmar 90. Leica build Tri-Elmar but with the image quality of the digit sensors and the crop facilities, It seems make sens to have just 2 focales. ?

 

If you agree the next question will be: 28 or 35 and 75 or 90mm.

 

The discussion is open!

[wda]

I guess the longer focal lengths would be impractical. On my TE I mostly use 35 and 50. If I need longer or wider, I take an additional lens with me.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ynp]

My choice is 28-75mm. F3.4 will be enough.

I would even buy a 35-75mm.

Make the Dual Bi-Elmar an APO lens, of similar quality as they made for the Vario, I would be ready to lay out big money for it.

 

I am a big fan of the MATE Tri-Elmar (v-2, 49mm. filter size) and my Konica Dual 21-35mm. is The Travel Lens for me nowadays.

[lct]

I have a MATE (28-35-50) already but it is not a true medium angle lens to me. It is so for crop cameras but not for full frame where i would need at least a 35, a 75 and preferably a 50 in between. But it would be a rather big lens then and it would block the 35mm framelines too much most probably. Now when i see the enthusiasm generated by a bulky 35 like the new Zeiss 35/1.4 on the LUF, i'm not sure of anything about that.

[tobey bilek]

35,50,90 is the classic set which I find very satisfactory.

 

50 lux current and 50 elmar last version are my favorites. My 35 is V4 Summicron. I am waiting for a 35 designed for digital.

[ockie50]

I actually wrote to Stefan Daniel over a year ago and suggested a Bi-Elmarit 35-50/2.8 lens. He responded that they (Leica) would add my suggestion to their pool of ideas for future development.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 and 75 then. Because I'd never leave my lux 35 at home for a 35/4.0. But I wouldn't buy a bifocal with 4.0 anyway, so.... The Tri-Elmars were a nice prestige work for Leica but I don't think it was a success, also because of the 4.0. Why would you want a Leica with 4.0 then?

[jankap]

Why would you want a Leica with 4.0 then?

 

For traveling, avoiding dust on the sensor, photographing landscapes, marcroing(sorry), using cameras with high sensitive sensors, etc.

With a Leica with its optical viewfinder a f/stop of 4.0 isn´t a problem.

Jan

[250swb]

I actually wrote to Stefan Daniel over a year ago and suggested a Bi-Elmarit 35-50/2.8 lens. He responded that they (Leica) would add my suggestion to their pool of ideas for future development.

 

Alternatively a stout pair of shoes and walk the short distance between 35mm and 50mm, and back again, like a zoom lens. Now that would be an invention, Leica zoom shoes, in ostrich leather, guaranteed not to root you to the spot.

 

Steve

[lct]

I need at least 3200 iso to use f/4 lenses for colour works personally. Works rather well with my Fuji X-E2 if i avoid underexposure but the M240 is too noisy there IMHO.

[otto.f]

For traveling, avoiding dust on the sensor, photographing landscapes, marcroing(sorry), using cameras with high sensitive sensors, etc.

With a Leica with its optical viewfinder a f/stop of 4.0 isn´t a problem.

Jan

 

I think in the last 10 years the advantage of Leica lenses over other brands has been reduced to supreme quality at 2.0 and wider for the sake of shallow depth of field.

 

A Tri-Elmar might be interesting for B&W landscape with my MM, but I can use VC's that show no differences beyond 4.0, two or three of them are just as heavy as a Tri-Elmar.

Avoiding dust on a sensor for that price?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/352055-door.html

 

this is an example how nice a VC can render colors

[lct]

Some CV lenses are very good indeed and don't get in the way of esthetical choices like over sharpening and over saturation but a small zoom or multi focal lens like the MATE takes less room than three primes and offers more versatility in good light IMHO. A new version would need to be less prone to flare though.

[MarkP]

2.0/28-50 Bi-Elmar-M ASPH please

[pico]

[...] It seems make sens to have just 2 focales. ?

 

The lens would probably cost almost as much as a second body.

.

[otto.f]

2.0/28-50 Bi-Elmar-M ASPH please

 

With zero obstruction of the view through the rangefinder bitte!

[otto.f]

The lens would probably cost almost as much as a second body.

.

 

At least double the price of an X-Vario, which is at 50mm better than the new apo-cron 50 according to Puts' tests.

 

So I don't think Leica will do this

[james.liam]

The surprise announcement of the superb new 1,4/35 from Zeiss will, if anything, force Leica to accelerate the belated redesign of its primes to eliminate focus shift and optimize for digital. The dream of a bi-Elmar is great but Leica has bigger fish to fry (what's the German equivalent for that, I wonder).

[Jeff S]

The lens would probably cost almost as much as a second body.

.

 

So, in Leica-world, right on target.

 

Jeff

[IWC Doppel]

I'd rather have two summicrons than a compromised slower all in one

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

Back when the MATE came out I quickly discovered that 90% of the time I could accomplish the same thing with just the relatively tiny, light 35/2 V4, also not need to change lenses, plus have the extra stop to boot. Which is why I sold the MATE. I would come to the same conclusion even quicker with any combination of the longer focals, as the difference in angle of view is even less than between shorter focal lengths. I find 21-35-90 covers all my travel needs (high-res digital like the M9 and M240 allows cropping the 90 to 135 and even 180 a lot better than with film), with 35 being on the camera the majority of time. The tiny, light CV 15 is easy to have along also. At the other end, if I need something longer than 135, I'm usually wanting something in the 200-400 range.