28mm f/1.4 lens coming - firm evidence?

[Guest odeon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think, 28'lux will release. But, it's not the issue. The issue is "Really, is it necessary?"

I bought 28'cron last month. I can't wait. Because i need a moderate lens. It has not extremely "corner-to-corner" sharpness, not superb CA control, not crème bokehs. It has good size, acceptable viewfinder blockage, great results.

And the price... I paid 3460 Euros for 28'cron. Or, i can bought another good lens, 28'rit for 1830 Euros. 28'lux will price around 5500 Euros. Under these conditions, the "lux" means only luxury.

[CheshireCat]

Under these conditions, the "lux" means only luxury.

 

The same conditions are true for 35mm M lenses. I assume you believe the 35 Lux is not necessary either. Oh, and neither the 50 Lux.

I wonder why Leica is producing useless f/1.4 lenses... I understand it is because of the million idiots shooting them randomly out of focus to see the creamy bokeh, as 250swb has clearly explained...

[cirke]

I think, 28'lux will release. But, it's not the issue. The issue is "Really, is it necessary?".

If a 28 lux comes I'll sell at once my 21SE and my 35 Summilux

I am really waiting for this lens

 

28'lux will price around 5500 Euros.

at least , but i'll certainly take it anyway , i'd like to have only 3 lenses instead of 5

[Guest odeon]

If a 28 lux comes I'll sell at once my 21SE and my 35 Summilux

I am really waiting for this lens

 

at least , but i'll certainly take it anyway , i'd like to have only 3 lenses instead of 5

 

Let's talk about math.

 

You have one 21 and one 35.

21 + 35 = 56

56 / 2 = 28

The average is 28. Hmm, good.

 

You have one f/3.4 and one f/1.4. f/1.4 equals 1 AV. f/3.4 equals 3+1/2 AV.

The average is 2+1/4 AV, or f/2.2.

 

You can see, if you're looking average lens between those lenses you should see the 28'cron.

[cirke]

Let's talk about math.

 

You have one 21 and one 35.

21 + 35 = 56

56 / 2 = 28

The average is 28. Hmm, good.

 

You have one f/3.4 and one f/1.4. f/1.4 equals 1 AV. f/3.4 equals 3+1/2 AV.

The average is 2+1/4 AV, or f/2.2.

 

You can see, if you're looking average lens between those lenses you should see the 28'cron.

yes but life and math are different and I dont want the 28cron

 

and I shall change my 90 and 135 for a 120mm Summicron

[Guest odeon]

yes but life and math are different and I dont want the 28cron :-)

OK, but i prefer 21'SEM and 35'lux over 28'lux.

21'SEM is a good lens. Especially its colour rendering is lovely. Also it's small, etc.

35'lux is one of the best lenses in Leica's product line. Everyone knows its perfomance. I can't tell anymore.

 

If i were you i would try 28'cron, or 28'rit. Trust me, both are successful as upcoming 28'lux.

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, but i prefer 21'SEM and 35'lux over 28'lux.

21'SEM is a good lens. Especially its colour rendering is lovely. Also it's small, etc.

35'lux is one of the best lenses in Leica's product line. Everyone knows its perfomance. I can't tell anymore.

 

If i were you i would try 28'cron, or 28'rit. Trust me, both are successful as upcoming 28'lux.

 

our reasons and mine are not the same

[wattsy]

If i were you i would try 28'cron, or 28'rit.

 

WTF is this "28'rit"?

[Paul J]

OK, but i prefer 21'SEM and 35'lux over 28'lux.

21'SEM is a good lens. Especially its colour rendering is lovely. Also it's small, etc.

35'lux is one of the best lenses in Leica's product line. Everyone knows its perfomance. I can't tell anymore.

 

If i were you i would try 28'cron, or 28'rit. Trust me, both are successful as upcoming 28'lux.

 

This is my current dilemma. The 21 SEM is such a brilliant perfect lens but for me, too limited at 3.4. I just wish the 21mm Summilux had the same characteristics at f3.4 as the SEM with the added bonus of opening up to 1.4, of corse I realise it's such an extreme lens and the fact it is as good as it is, is a miracle.

 

I have been so close, on separate occasions, as to pulling the trigger on the SEM or the SX yet alas, I continue to swing about. It's now a case of deciding, instead, not which will I own, but which I will own first.

 

I would imagine the 28 LX will be like the 35 LX, i.e. as good as the slower model and also having 1.4. I will definitely go for a 28LX when available.

[rosuna]

In my opinion a Summilux 28mm does not make any sense.

 

The more interesting new lens would be a Tri-Elmar 21-24-28 f/4. Small and high performer.

[semi-ambivalent]

It's now a case of deciding, instead, not which will I own, but which I will own first.

 

ooooo, to have only such problems...

 

s-a

[cirke]

In my opinion a Summilux 28mm does not make any sense.

 

The more interesting new lens would be a Tri-Elmar 21-24-28 f/4. Small and high performer.

why not a 21-22-23 mm ... a range so flexible

[jaapv]

WTF is this "28'rit"?

A “Elma’28” from an opposite universe.

[Paul J]

ooooo, to have only such problems...

 

s-a

 

if they really were my only problems, yes I agree

[rosuna]

why not a 21-22-23 mm ... a range so flexible

 

 

It would be a true zoom, but you need the three focals for selecting the corrections in the camera's menu, just like the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21.

[Guest odeon]

WTF is this "28'rit"?

Good point.

After 2007, the "rit"s are a bit confusing. Because some people think "rit" means summarit. But, originally "rit" describes elmarit.

[lct]

so asphrit or preasphrit?

[CheshireCat]

28 Nocticron, please

[marknorton]

In my opinion a Summilux 28mm does not make any sense.

 

The more interesting new lens would be a Tri-Elmar 21-24-28 f/4. Small and high performer.

 

I agree, a 28mm Summilux would steal sales from the 24 and 35 and there would still be an expectation it would work with the viewfinder. It's going to be larger than the 35 yet should be smaller to minimise intrusion into the viewfinder.

 

I would certainly like Leica to revisit the Tri-Elmar but I doubt they could do it at an interesting price. Since the WATE covers 21mm, it would make sense for it to start at 24 but I wonder how well the original 28-50 lens sold.

 

For me, the 21-35 has proved interesting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rosuna]

I agree, a 28mm Summilux would steal sales from the 24 and 35 and there would still be an expectation it would work with the viewfinder. It's going to be larger than the 35 yet should be smaller to minimise intrusion into the viewfinder.

 

 

 

I would certainly like Leica to revisit the Tri-Elmar but I doubt they could do it at an interesting price. Since the WATE covers 21mm, it would make sense for it to start at 24 but I wonder how well the original 28-50 lens sold.

 

 

 

For me, the 21-35 has proved interesting.

 

 

The Tri-Elmar was a tri focal lens, a complex mechanical design. It had to activate the correct framelines.

 

The current Tri-Elmar 16-21 is a real vario focal objective, small but expensive.

 

I am not interested in it because 21 is as far as I want to go. Below 21 we are in the extreme wide angle territory. But 21 to 28 is a wonderful range of true (but not extreme) wide angle focals. Yo only need to activate one frameline, 28, so it would be mechanically more simple than the old Tri-Elmar. It should be smaller and cheaper than the current one. A ver interesting lens for those photographers who want a focal in that range but do not like to commit to just one of them. It would be great.

 

Another Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 would be a good complement but if it is a true zoom you have to forget the framelines. A real tri focal lens with framelines activation would be -again- mechanically complex. It do not make too much sense for the M, because you have live view, but... the lens has to be compatible with film and M8/M9 cameras as well.