Proposal Bi-Elmar-M

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 21-24-28 Tri-Elmar f/4 lens would be a true zoom lens. You don't need a mechanism for activating framelines, except for the 28mm FoV.

 

16-18-21 Tri-Elmar + 21-24-28 Tri-Elmar Zooms expand the possibilities of the system.

 

A simple optical viewfinder with 2 framelines would be enough for those who don't like live view (like myself).

[Guest]

... i would need at least a 35, a 75 and preferably a 50 in between...

 

I would like to see a 21-24-28 Tri-Elmar f/4 lens...

 

MATE & WATE on an M8 should comply with those requirements, if you are satisfied with maximum aperture 4.0.

[lct]

MATE & WATE on an M8 should comply with those requirements, if you are satisfied with maximum aperture 4.0.

Yes MATE and M8.2 user here but i prefer APS-C cameras with the former and there is no equivalent M lens for full frame cameras. I use the R 35-70/4 with pleasure but it is bulkier and i don't like much the LVF/EVF features of the M240 i must say. YMMV.

[rosuna]

Yes MATE and M8.2 user here but i prefer APS-C cameras with the former and there is no equivalent M lens for full frame cameras. I use the R 35-70/4 with pleasure but it is bulkier and i don't like much the LVF/EVF features of the M240 i must say. YMMV.

 

I would be more than happy with a simple 21mm optical viewfinder with fixed 24 + 28 framelines. Enough for approximate framing. The EVF on the M240 is an alternative for those liking live view operation. I don´t like it due to the double actuation of the shutter.

 

The real problem with zoom lenses on M cameras is framing on film cameras. How do you solve this problem? The Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 had the frankenfinder... expensive to develop and manufacture, low demand item... The simple viewfinder I propose is a simpler and cheaper solution, but not perfect. The Summiluxes 21 and 24 lenses were presented with optical viewfinders and framelines inside (for the M8). It is different with a zoom lens, I know, but good enough for many...

 

I would be very excited with a small and practical Tri-Elmar 21-24-28 f/4 but not with a new super expensive and large 75 Summilux or 28 Summilux.

[SiggiGun]

On the germain forum I open the same question: asking for a (travail) bi-Elmar with 28 and 75mm. Or 35/90 based on summarit 35 and macro 90

[luigi bertolotti]

Frankly I think is simply impossible to design a 28-75 or 35-90 which :

1) Is reasonably compact fro the M body size

2) Has a reasonable aperture (say... would anyone accept less than 4,5 ?)

3) Does not obstruct the VF/RF

4) Has an imaging quality up to the M standard, and to the high price it would have

 

So... should be an EVF only lens... not yet the right time for Leica FF... T, at the moment, is the platform for experiencing new varifocals, if Leica decides to do. For M with EVF, there are dozens of choices with adapted SLR lenses (Leica included)

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 21-24-28 Tri-Elmar f/4 ASPH...

[wattsy]

Frankly I think is simply impossible to design a 28-75 or 35-90 which :

1) Is reasonably compact fro the M body size

2) Has a reasonable aperture (say... would anyone accept less than 4,5 ?)

 

Yes, it sounds like it would be a monster of a lens. I had the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar many years ago and, although I appreciated the convenience (and engineering ingeniousness) of it, I always felt it to be inappropriately long and spoilt the balance of my M7. The longer I've used the M system, the more I've come to appreciate the ergonomics of the M body plus a smaller lens like the 35 Summicron.