tri elmar informal testing

[rvaubel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rex, how's about machining the filter holder I've sketched??

 

With CNC lathe the first part would be $1500 or so. The next one would be about $20

 

Rex

[Advertisement]

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

[rvaubel]

Rex, how's about machining the filter holder I've sketched??

 

I forgot to add that your filter design would vignette like a son of a bitch.

 

Rex

[marknorton]

I forgot to add that your filter design would vignette like a son of a bitch.

 

Rex

 

Not sure how a son-of-a-bitch does vignette, but the 21mm Elmarit works fine with a 55mm filter so providing it's for use only on the M8, and the filter glass could be mounted close to the front element, it might be OK.

[cme4brain]

Not sure how a son-of-a-bitch does vignette, but the 21mm Elmarit works fine with a 55mm filter so providing it's for use only on the M8, and the filter glass could be mounted close to the front element, it might be OK.

 

Your filter adapter looks fine, but perhaps a step-up ring to a much larger size (assuming we are talking about the CV 15mm lens) would allow a filter with no vignetting. There is a way to adapt the CV 12mm filter ring (72mm or 77mm filter size, I believe) to the CV 15mm (see the cameraquest website). Certainly a 77mm filter size will NOT vignette. In fact, if there is a shortage on IR 486 filters in 39mm (the most common filter size for M series lenses apparently), one could buy a step up ring to say 46mm, a less popular size and use those 486 filters.

[xjr]

It is important to protect the front lense surface which is curved and its line appears to be above the threads ? The use of a hood is fine but cannot provide protection from dust,splashes,smudging etc.Therefore a UV filter is a must. B&W make a slim [3mm thick] filter but without front threading which would be ideal.Will this lense accept both the hood and the filter holder and hence the filter ?

[marknorton]

Your filter adapter looks fine, but perhaps a step-up ring to a much larger size (assuming we are talking about the CV 15mm lens) would allow a filter with no vignetting. There is a way to adapt the CV 12mm filter ring (72mm or 77mm filter size, I believe) to the CV 15mm (see the cameraquest website). Certainly a 77mm filter size will NOT vignette. In fact, if there is a shortage on IR 486 filters in 39mm (the most common filter size for M series lenses apparently), one could buy a step up ring to say 46mm, a less popular size and use those 486 filters.

 

My interest was in allowing the hood and lens cap which comes as standard with the lens to still be used with an IR filter in place. The Leica filter carrier is just that - a step-up ring to 67mm - and with the filter in place, no hood, no lens cap.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is important to protect the front lense surface which is curved and its line appears to be above the threads ? The use of a hood is fine but cannot provide protection from dust,splashes,smudging etc.Therefore a UV filter is a must. B&W make a slim [3mm thick] filter but without front threading which would be ideal.Will this lense accept both the hood and the filter holder and hence the filter ?

 

Thast's why the thread is red - to warn you the front element is exposed. The key thing is that the thread is male - normal filter threads are female, so a normal filter will not work without the filter adaptor - to 67mm and then the hood will not fit.

 

The larger filters are required to avoid vignetting on FF, but on M8, I believe a smaller filter could be used.

[Guest magyarman]

The early Leitz adapters did not have the cutout. If this coding non-Leica lenes thing takes off, you can bet a full adapter will be manufactured WITH machined dots for the self coding do it yourselfer.

 

If there were enough people interested, I would machine a bunch myself.

 

Rex

 

Bravo, bravo! Is true, like I say. All rinks for 5cm have wide cut place so infinite bottom of 3,5/5cm Elmar can pushed back. Later, Leitz keep cut place for all rinks so need only one machin for everyone. Now for M8 need only one, which have full metallic where are sensible light from M8 inside, also can be 28/90 frame activation, because this longest one, all other can only shorter little bit. Please sir you make some!

[carstenw]

Doesn't a normal filter fitted backwards work? That would essentially be what that drawing shows.

[xjr]

Both of these shots show the how close the opposite side of the price spectrum can be in quality. I have downloaded the full size originals and they are both very sharp. But notice that the Leica has a purple

flair on the knife caused by the bare bulb. The Heliar is flare free.

 

Also, I can't help but ask, is the coat in the back, left purple or black? Wait, wait,......let me guess

 

Rex

 

The purple ''discolouration'' is all over the place around the utensils for both optics.What one needs to note is the serious light fall-off in the 15mm lense all around as opposed to the Tri-Elmar where the illumination is far more even.This is the real problem with the cheaper optic and this will emanate itself in all pictures regardless. This is an unfair comparison where even the focal lengths are different noting that 15mm is 3degrees wider than 16mm.

[jrc]

That is truly bizarre. What possible reason could they have for requiring a separate filter adapter rather than simply building in the filter thread, like almost every other camera lens in existence?

 

Probably because the glass extends out futher than the barrel, and must do that because of the wide-angle aspect. I suppose they could give you a free adapter, but nobody else does *that,* either.

 

JC

[ho_co]

I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves regarding our hopes for the firmware. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Leica has said anything about correcting the cyan shift caused by the filters. I believe we have simply made that assumption, along the line of: "OK, we see that they can correct for vignetting; so why couldn't they put in correction for the ring of cyan as well?" Of course, we've made that assumption partially because they say that for best results we should use the combination of coded lenses and the IR-cut filters.

 

But when we get to lenses like the WATE, having three ultra-wides in a single package and no way to tell the camera which of the three focal lengths made the image, I don't see even the possibility of a solution.

 

But then, Leica has surprised us often enough before...

[marknorton]

HC, I think the fix announcement, now replaced by the registration announcement, said that coding was recommended for lenses 35mm and wider. We know there's no particular need just to correct sensor vignetting, so they must be planning to do more.

 

I expect the uncorrected cyan when the lens is on 16mm is pretty severe.

 

It's time to park my concerns until I get a response from Leica but I think the lens is compromised unless they sort out the front end and provide the ability for the camera to know the selected focal length. It's possible they could add/replace an entry in the SET menu when this lens is mounted with the quick ability to select the focal length.

 

History would be repeating itself if in a couple of years, they came out with a revised WATE which replaces the original and has these design bugs fixed. In the meantime, I'm wary of buying.

[rvaubel]

 

Who says? I've been an anti-filter puritain all my life and have been extremely annoyed at Leica for designing the M8 to require a IR filter. Then to see someone suggest that they would use a filter out of choice Sort of like putting seat covers on your Morracon leather seats.

 

Rex

[ho_co]

HC, I think the fix announcement, now replaced by the registration announcement, said that coding was recommended for lenses 35mm and wider. We know there's no particular need just to correct sensor vignetting, so they must be planning to do more.

 

I expect the uncorrected cyan when the lens is on 16mm is pretty severe.

Sean talks to Leica frequently and he has said repeatedly that he thinks that's what's coming. The assumption certainly makes sense.

 

History would be repeating itself if in a couple of years, they came out with a revised WATE which replaces the original and has these design bugs fixed. In the meantime, I'm wary of buying.

Good point. Maybe the new lens will appear at the same time as the M8MkII.

 

In the meantime, your M8-only filter adapter looks like a very reasonable alternative.

 

--HC

[ho_co]

With CNC lathe the first part would be $1500 or so. The next one would be about $20

Rex--You've probably just unveiled the secret of Leica's existence!

 

Let's say you figured you could sell 100 units here on the forum. That would be a single run of (1 x $1500) + (99 x $20) = $3480, or $34.80 per unit.

 

Figure the same if Leica did it, but then add in distribution costs, agency markups, dealer profits and you'd come to around $70 to $100, wouldn't you?

 

Or if you made only ten pieces, they'd be $168 each. Small volume simply means higher prices.

 

You've sold us. I think we'll buy from you. Can you cover mine in grey Corinthian leather?

 

--HC

[Riley]

why not just go for a conventional stepup ring to an outsized filter size ?

 

if the lens thread is not compatible, you could machine and recut the thread to a narrower diameter stepup ring, being carefull to ensure that there is enough meat left on it to keep it all together

[rvaubel]

Rex--You've probably just unveiled the secret of Leica's existence!

 

Let's say you figured you could sell 100 units here on the forum. That would be a single run of (1 x $1500) + (99 x $20) = $3480, or $34.80 per unit.

 

Figure the same if Leica did it, but then add in distribution costs, agency markups, dealer profits and you'd come to around $70 to $100, wouldn't you?

 

Or if you made only ten pieces, they'd be $168 each. Small volume simply means higher prices.

 

You've sold us. I think we'll buy from you. Can you cover mine in grey Corinthian leather?

 

--HC

 

If the the new software does cyan correction based on lens coding. I would image a run of 1000 pc could be done retailed for $60 or so.

 

But we will see what Leica comes up with

 

Rex

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

Riley, that's exactly what the Leica filter adapter does - a step up ring to a conventional 67mm filter with a female screw to attach to the front of the lens with the filter moved forwards to clear the front lens element. It works, but you can't use the hood or lens cap and i'm looking for a neater, more compact solution.

[xjr]

Who says? I've been an anti-filter puritain all my life and have been extremely annoyed at Leica for designing the M8 to require a IR filter. Then to see someone suggest that they would use a filter out of choice Sort of like putting seat covers on your Morracon leather seats.

 

Rex

 

This is your opinion and is respected.Therefore respect other peoples.

Some of us do use filters for protection and in B&W.

Do not buy the M8 ( nobody is forcing you) and can tell LEICA to stop the manufacture of their filters.

The word ''puritain'' is written ''puritan'' ,at least in English.