Dear Leica a new lens request

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try simulating the "glow" of Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph, the bokeh of Summicron 35/2 v4 or the "Tessar look" of Elmar 50/2.8. If you succeed, i will try your profiles with great interest.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[roydonian]

How about X1.4 and/or x2 teleconverters for the M? The company's optical design skills have moved on since the last time they designed one.

[michaelwj]

Dropping the minimum focus distance to 0.7m on some of the classics would make them desirable. I'm thinking of the 35 pre asph summilux. It focused to 0.65m with goggles, so it's likely just mechanical.

Add some updated coatings and a filter thread and we're talking!

[steppenw0lf]

How about X1.4 and/or x2 teleconverters for the M? The company's optical design skills have moved on since the last time they designed one.

 

The problem is the OVF (the rangefinder). It is not precise enough for that. (And how would the coupling be solved ?)

If you would use it on the SL with EVF or the M240/246 with EVF it would be possible. But there would not be much demand for such a device - it is simpler to add a R lens.

[Martin B]

I know it is not going to happen, but I wish Leica would make some less expensive ultra-wide angle M lenses similar to what Voigtlander just did. Those lenses don't need to be fast, I would be fine with f/4.5 or even f/5.6 if they are still kept small in size. I really like my CV 12/5.6 M lens - the newer CV 15/4.5 version is much more bulkier and more expensive. And again, it should not be a $2K lens line or something - just something small, slower in aperture speed, normal built (no water resistant lens or other fancy stuff) with good image quality and contrast (doesn't need to be superb, some corner unsharpness with ultra-wide lenses is fine with me).

[IWC Doppel]

I know it is not going to happen, but I wish Leica would make some less expensive ultra-wide angle M lenses similar to what Voigtlander just did. Those lenses don't need to be fast, I would be fine with f/4.5 or even f/5.6 if they are still kept small in size. I really like my CV 12/5.6 M lens - the newer CV 15/4.5 version is much more bulkier and more expensive. And again, it should not be a $2K lens line or something - just something small, slower in aperture speed, normal built (no water resistant lens or other fancy stuff) with good image quality and contrast (doesn't need to be superb, some corner unsharpness with ultra-wide lenses is fine with me).

 

Why not just but Voigtlander ?

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Buy not but 

[Martin B]

Why not just but Voigtlander ?

 

Nothing wrong with this. But if a competitive product of a similar quality is out there, prices for each will be more reasonable.

[arno_nyhm]

not asking for much. i'd just like to try out:

 

28/1,0 Noctilux

90/1,4 Summilux

 

and maybe

 

50/3,5 Makro-Elmar 1:1

or

 

35-70/2,8 Vario-Elmar?

 

and, please, if they can't fit the M240, maybe they could fit Nikon F-Mount?

[lct]

[...] just something small, slower in aperture speed, normal built (no water resistant lens or other fancy stuff) with good image quality and contrast (doesn't need to be superb, some corner unsharpness with ultra-wide lenses is fine with me).

 

I would not expect Leica to make compromise on optical or mechanical quality. To get more affordable M lenses, CV or ZM are the ways to go. Nothing wrong in that. I use more often my CV 21/4 than my Leica 21/3.4 asph or 21/2.8 asph for instance and if i were interested in 15mm lenses i would not hesitate to order the latest CV 15/4.5 personally. YMMV.

[otho]

Noctilux 28 & Summilux 90 will be bulky and very heavy lenses...

[IWC Doppel]

Nothing wrong with this. But if a competitive product of a similar quality is out there, prices for each will be more reasonable.

 

If your looking for cheaper lenses than Voigtlander, don't look at Leica, competing with Voigtlander at the same quality and price point will not be part of their strategy and nor should it.

[Martin B]

If your looking for cheaper lenses than Voigtlander, don't look at Leica, competing with Voigtlander at the same quality and price point will not be part of their strategy and nor should it.

 

As I stated above, I also believe Leica won't follow this route as I wished for. Not sure why you say "nor should it" - I am not working for Leica (do you?) and maybe their high value strategy works - or it won't and they would have been better off additionally competing in other market segments. The future will tell. 

[roydonian]

The problem is the OVF (the rangefinder). It is not precise enough for that. (And how would the coupling be solved ?)

 

The coupling problem is already solved, as the Extender-M, Komura Telemore, and Benetti teleconverters for the M series demonstrated.

 

A 90mm lens with an x1.4 extender becomes a 135mm - that's what Leitz planned when they designed the Extender-M.

 

Where the fun begins is when you couple the extender with a 135mm lens to get the equivalent of a 190m or 275mm lens. The combo needs to be stopped down to the point where the depth of focus is similar to that of a 135mm lens, so gets within the focussing capability of the M rangefinder. Stopping down also reduces the optical limitations of what is essentially a non-optimised telephoto lens.

 

The problems for those of us who enjoy living in an optical danger zone is that the optical quality of the Komura device is not very good. The Benatti is much better, but is not mechanically compatible with some lenses - only a small number were made, and it is hard to find on the second-hand market

[cirke]

43 mm Noctilux  :-)

[farnz]

Why 43 mm?

 

Pete.

[cirke]

Why 43 mm?

 

Pete.

 

because it's the most naturel lens for a 24x36    just between zoom and wide angle, 43.2666153056 :-)

[farnz]

43.267 is certainly the hypotenuse of 36 by 24 but that means that the outer edge of the image circle, where aberrations are typically at their strongest, will be hard on the edges of the frame so there's likely to be vignetting and soft corners etc.  The famous Pentax 43/1.9 exhibits this on film or full frame digital cameras although used on micro four thirds it naturally improves a lot in the corners.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NB23]

I noticed I have too many 35mm lenses. Getting boring.

 

I now want a 34mm summilux.

[IWC Doppel]

As I stated above, I also believe Leica won't follow this route as I wished for. Not sure why you say "nor should it" - I am not working for Leica (do you?) and maybe their high value strategy works - or it won't and they would have been better off additionally competing in other market segments. The future will tell. 

 

No I don't work for Leica, so can't say they won't but can say they shouldn't. The only way Leica could compete is to provide a totally different product manufactured overseas, they are not set up for this and it would be as credible as Porsche reinventing the 924, entering other market segments is fine, but I see no value in doing so at the low price/quality end, at best it would pick up some M sales from Voigtlander, at worst it would undermine the brand, reduce sales of their premium products and confuse the consumer as to exactly what Leica stands for ?

 

If you want an Audi, buy one if you want a Porsche he buy one, if you want an audi with a Porsche badge you could have bought one, but what's the point for the consumer or the manufacturer ?