Einst_Stein Posted August 11, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really really like my MATE. Now I wish Leica to offer the third tri-Elmar, 75-90-135mm. With a 2x goggle, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Hi Einst_Stein, Take a look here TATE Tri-Elmar 75-90-135mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wda Posted August 11, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Have you worked our how big such a lens would be? And the cost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 11, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Given the size of the WATE and MATE in comparison to fixed focal lengths in their ranges, a 75-90-135 wouldn't necessarily be any bigger than a 135 APO-Telyt. Cost, well, if it cost as much as three separate primes in those focal lengths it would still have the convenience factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 11, 2014 Share #4 Â Posted August 11, 2014 .....With a 2x goggle, of course. Â Should they decide to announce a 2x goggled lens.... I would like better a 180 prime even with 4.8 or 6.3 aperture to keep it not too big&heavy; and, imho, it would sell better than any multifocal (also for it could cost less) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Would need electronic framelines and the VF blockage would be huge i'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted August 11, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted August 11, 2014 A zoom lens might be nice, for use with the EVF ... and with the next M perhaps even autofocus? Meanwhile, old R mount lenses are magnitudes cheaper than anything Leica is selling at the moment. Perhaps an interesting alternative if you have a M 240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share #7 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Should they decide to announce a 2x goggled lens.... I would like better a 180 prime even with 4.8 or 6.3 aperture to keep it not too big&heavy; and, imho, it would sell better than any multifocal (also for it could cost less) Â Not sure why it should be big. As another post pointed out, it should not be too far off the 35mm Elmar. I have a 135mm Elmar V1, super sharp, the length is about M9's length. The slightly newer version , tele-elmar is about 2/3 of that. Â The 2X goggle is only an enlarger in front of the OVF. In fact, I think it should be ~2.7X. An alternative is the ~2.7X view finder magnifier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share #8 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Would need electronic framelines and the VF blockage would be huge i'm afraid. Â Oh, no, no electronic frame line. VF blockage? I think it's quite opposite. It happens in wide angle, not tele. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share #9 Â Posted August 11, 2014 A zoom lens might be nice, for use with the EVF ... and with the next M perhaps even autofocus? Meanwhile, old R mount lenses are magnitudes cheaper than anything Leica is selling at the moment. Perhaps an interesting alternative if you have a M 240. Â AF? next room please. Just follow the sign "Leica T". Zoom for EVF? check out "Leica R".* Â TATE is for real OVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2014 Share #10 Â Posted August 11, 2014 Oh, no, no electronic frame line. VF blockage? I think it's quite opposite. It happens in wide angle, not tele. With 2x magnification? Which current framelines would you use then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share #11 Â Posted August 12, 2014 With 2x magnification? Which current framelines would you use then? Â The largest frame line would be 75mm. leica M VF is large enough for 28mm, so after 2x magnification, it should appear at roughly the location of 28-35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 12, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted August 12, 2014 With 2x magnification? Which current framelines would you use then? Â My speculated 180 should work with the 90 frame... A revisitation of the T Elmarit 135 which had a 1.5x goggle unit framing with the 90 lines Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 12, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted August 12, 2014 Not sure why it should be big. As another post pointed out, it should not be too far off the 35mm Elmar. I have a 135mm Elmar V1, super sharp, the length is about M9's length. The slightly newer version , tele-elmar is about 2/3 of that... Â Exactly what I'm dreaming of... a goggle unit styled similar to the recent one made for the Macro Elmar 90.. And a lens body around Tele Elmar / Elmar 135 length... Keeping a diameter not biggerit would be possible to design a 180 of 5,6/6,3 aperture.... or a 4,5/4,8 if the size would be more close to the Tele Elmarit 135 (I quote 4,8 aperture for reminiscence of the old Canadian Telyt 280...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 12, 2014 Share #14 Â Posted August 12, 2014 My speculated 180 should work with the 90 frame... A revisitation of the T Elmarit 135 which had a 1.5x goggle unit framing with the 90 lines This could work at f/4 or slower apertures i guess but a mint Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 or a new Nikkor 180/2.8 would be less expensive by far. As for the size agument it would be ruined by the goggles i'm afraid. We will never see such a monster lens i bet but i will send you a bottle of Normandy cider if i'm proved wrong... when pigs can fly . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share #15 Â Posted August 12, 2014 Exactly what I'm dreaming of... a goggle unit styled similar to the recent one made for the Macro Elmar 90.. And a lens body around Tele Elmar / Elmar 135 length... Keeping a diameter not biggerit would be possible to design a 180 of 5,6/6,3 aperture.... or a 4,5/4,8 if the size would be more close to the Tele Elmarit 135 (I quote 4,8 aperture for reminiscence of the old Canadian Telyt 280...) Â Your idea triggered me a new thought. Instead of 75-90-135, it could be something like 90-120-180mm with about 2x magnifier in the goggle, whatever, to match the frames of 28-35-50mm. Â oh, my, what dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted August 21, 2014 Share #16 Â Posted August 21, 2014 I'd prefer a Tri-Elmar-M 35-50-90 mm Asph. Or maybe a Tri-Elmarit-M 28-35-50 mm Asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted August 21, 2014 Share #17 Â Posted August 21, 2014 Should they decide to announce a 2x goggled lens.... I would like better a 180 prime even with 4.8 or 6.3 aperture to keep it not too big&heavy; and, imho, it would sell better than any multifocal (also for it could cost less) Â ..or perhaps a re-creation of one of the longer focal length classics, such as the 400 or 600 lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share #18  Posted August 22, 2014 ..or perhaps a re-creation of one of the longer focal length classics, such as the 400 or 600 lenses  For such long lenses, I would use DSLR and AF. Maybe a resurected FF digital R if possible, but Canon 6D or the alike would be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.