rramesh Posted April 10, 2013 Share #21 Posted April 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 35-75 f/1.4 Zoomilux, 75-135 f/2.5 Zoomarit and the 18-28 f/3.5 Super Zoomar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Hi rramesh, Take a look here Is it time for an M mount Zoom?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kayaro Posted April 10, 2013 Share #22 Posted April 10, 2013 Emmmm......... May be 3rd party like Zeiss, VC or even Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will come out something...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpants Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share #23 Posted April 10, 2013 I understand the backward compatibility issue and this might cause a problem once we get past 90mm. But what about a zoom which incorporated a slight 'click stop' as it passed a frame line compatible focal length? This would service both the rangefinder only cameras (up to 90mm and possibly a bit beyond) and the newer LV/EVF cameras. I guess the only problem might be is that the current frame lines would have to be manually changed to cater for the new zoom position. I have never used a WATE but I guess the viewfinder has to be manually switched for each different focal length? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anabasis Posted April 10, 2013 Share #24 Posted April 10, 2013 Well the WATE is a zoom. You just need live view to frame it accurately, so technically, Leica has already started. Zooms tend to go against the grain of the Leica M philosophy however. Zooms are bigger and slower than the primes to get even close to the same optical quality. How many people use the Tri-elmar? I don't see many images from it or read much about them here. Make that a zoom, and there is your mid-ranged zoom instead of 3 set focal lengths. We will see some use of R-glass and live-view with the new M (especially longer focal lengths), but I suspect that a vast majority of users will stick with the small Leica primes, especially in the 16-135mm ranges. I could be all wet with this, especially in video, but that is my gut feeling. JCA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted April 10, 2013 Share #25 Posted April 10, 2013 Well the WATE is a zoom. You just need live view to frame it accurately, so technically, Leica has already started. Zooms tend to go against the grain of the Leica M philosophy however. Zooms are bigger and slower than the primes to get even close to the same optical quality. How many people use the Tri-elmar? I don't see many images from it or read much about them here. Make that a zoom, and there is your mid-ranged zoom instead of 3 set focal lengths. JCA Zoom tends to be slower abd bigger, agree. But if you take the two tri-elmar and Contax Zeiss G 35-70mm, it can still be acceptible, particularly if it is reasonably smaller than other mirrorless zooms. As much as I like the best R zooms, I will compare the advantage of M +R-lens with, say, 6D+ R-lens. Either the size or the image quality has to justiy the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 10, 2013 Share #26 Posted April 10, 2013 If you want to see how desirable the Tri-Elmar/MATE is - just have a look at how prices have climbed. With the better high ISO's it is going to be even more useful on the M240. It has only two weaknesses: The performance at 28mm does not hold a candle to my 28 Summicron but is still better than the competitions' zooms and the mount/framelines change mechanism is a little fragile. I don't know anyone who has one who would willing part with it. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted April 10, 2013 Share #27 Posted April 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you want to see how desirable the Tri-Elmar/MATE is - just have a look at how prices have climbed. With the better high ISO's it is going to be even more useful on the M240. It has only two weaknesses: The performance at 28mm does not hold a candle to my 28 Summicron but is still better than the competitions' zooms and the mount/framelines change mechanism is a little fragile. I don't know anyone who has one who would willing part with it. Wilson I had owned three and none now. The first one was returned right after received it. The focusing ring is loose that had a play when turning in the opposite direction. This is one of the common problems with this lens used. The second is the E55 version. Yes, it had serious flare problem when shooting without the hood. I didn't know a lens hood could be a great help, and I was trying to avoid it due to the view finder blockage. I tried and was struggled to love this lens. Then I got my third one. It's an E49 version. the flare problem seemed gone, but I was still not happy with it in terms of the contrast in certain situations. The camera store loaned me a hood, voila, it's much better. Immediately I found the E55 version can be just as good if I add the problem hood. But after comparing the pictures with what taken with 50mm Summicron and 25mm Biogon -- I don't have 28mm, I use 25mm when I want 28mm or wider -- I realize how much better I can do it if I just take the trouble to switch the lens. I then loaned a 35mm V1. Finally I settle the problem. I found I can use a 35mm F2 as my zoom. I sold both MATE after struggled for about two months. At that time, it's an emotional stress. I spent a lot of money on them, and more importantly, it took me a lot of effort in hunting the MATEs. But I'm glad I did it. I used the money in purchasing a car. Today, I have a zoom on my M9. It's a 35mm lens mounted on a 2 feet human body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 10, 2013 Share #28 Posted April 10, 2013 Today, I have a zoom on my M9. It's a 35mm lens mounted on a 2 feet human body. I hope you're taller than that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted April 11, 2013 Share #29 Posted April 11, 2013 I hope you're taller than that! 2 feet wide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.