35/50/90 Tri Elmar?

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't see a lens design which might be appropriate for 35 mm and 90 mm as well.

Zoom lenses exist. 28-85 mm lenses for 35-mm format are around since the late '70s/early '80s—and that's a small zoom range by today's standards. In fact, a 35-50-90 mm lens is easier to design than a 28-35-50 mm lens ... and much easier than the WATE. For someone who created a Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm 1:4 Asph the size of a Summarit-M 90 mm, designing a new, high-performance Tri-Elmar-M 35-50-90 mm 1:4 lens would be a piece of cake.

 

I guess the problem is the size. I think a Tri-Elmar-M 35-50-90 mm 1:4 would be the size of a 90 mm Summicron ... or thereabouts. While being the size of a 90 mm Summicron is okay for a 90 mm M lens, it is not for a 35 mm M lens. It would obstruct way too much of the viewfinder's field of view to be useful. If however it could be made the size of a 90 mm Summarit (i.e. basically the same size, more or less, as the MATE and WATE) then it would be useful.

 

Of course, the non-technical problems are always there, too ... i. e. cost of development, manufacturing capacity, and expected return on investment.

[SJP]

Unlike the WATE the MATE is not a "zoom" lens (as also follows from the 28/50/35 sequence). A much cheaper zoom lens type design would involve a separate frame selection ring. That could also work for a 35/50/90 Tri Elmar.

[giordano]

Unlike the WATE the MATE is not a "zoom" lens (as also follows from the 28/50/35 sequence). A much cheaper zoom lens type design would involve a separate frame selection ring. That could also work for a 35/50/90 Tri Elmar.

 

Optically it is a zoom lens with a layout similar to other manufacturers' lenses in the same focal length and aperture range, though it's simpler because it only has to perform well at three specified focal lengths rather than across the range. It's only the mechanical side that rules out the intermediate focal lengths.

[01af]

Unlike the WATE, the MATE is not a "zoom" lens ...

Huh!? Why would it be no zoom lens? Sure it's a zoom! A zoom with a funny zoom ring. In a 35-50-90, the zoom ring would be much simpler, as the sequence of focal lengths is 'correct.'

[3rdtrick]

I think a 35/50/90 lens would be extremely useful. The only problem is in another thread where we are all having trouble deciding between 75 and 90... Maybe we could make a Quad-Elmar and be 35/50/75/90.

Pete

[pgk]

Huh!? Why would it be no zoom lens? Sure it's a zoom! A zoom with a funny zoom ring. In a 35-50-90, the zoom ring would be much simpler, as the sequence of focal lengths is 'correct.'

And Leica have built various vario-elmars for R already so a smaller aperture version with a slightly extended focal range might well be possible. It would not be (easily usable as) a zoom in as much as it would have to have click stops at 35, 50 (perhaps 75) and 90, and the only substantial mechanical complication might be transfer of the focal length to the frame selector in the camera.

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Optically it is a zoom lens with a layout similar to other manufacturers' lenses in the same focal length and aperture range, though it's simpler because it only has to perform well at three specified focal lengths rather than across the range. It's only the mechanical side that rules out the intermediate focal lengths.

If "simpler" means that it outperforms prime lenses at three focal lenghts then we may have a point for discussion. (see Erwin Puts on the MATE, not my opinion, also the cross-section of this lens is not exactly simple)

Maybe we should drop the point of 'zoom' or 'not-zoom' as I am not sure about that except from what I read here previously. What is the definition of "zoom" anyway - does anyone know? I thought it had to do with 'continuous' but maybe I am mistaken.