MATE discontinued

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

> Skating on Thin Ice?

 

21/2.8, 35/1.4, 35/2, 50/1, 90/2.8

 

 

er.. why would the 35/1.4 and 35/2 of all lenses be on the chopping block?? these are some of the most versatile lenses crop or no crop

 

 

 

Aren't the two 35's and the 2/50 Cron the biggest sellers for Leica?

 

I've also heard that the new 2.8/28 ASPH is backordered for months. Doesn't surprise me. It seems to work the best with the M8 framelines and the 2/28 Summicron ASPH costs over $3000 at this point.

[thrid]

I didn't mean the focal length would be dropped, simply that the lens needs updating in its present form.

 

The 35/1.4 was one of the first ASPH lenses and as tests here have revealed, the level of residual spherical aberation which causes focus shift as you stop down is a problem. There appear to be differences between the aluminium and brass bodied lenses but since the 35/1.4 is, as you say, one of the most versatile lenses, it needs to be better and is ready for a re-design. For a lens at this price level, it shouldn't be necessary to nudge the focussing ring just because you want to shoot at f4.

 

I believe Sean Reid is testing the 35s, so it will be interesting to see what he makes of it.

 

All highspeed lenses suffer from focus shift. It's simply a trait of their optical design. It can be minimized, but I'm not sure if can be eliminated. I think the problem is that with the M8 were are pixel peeping a lot closer than we didwith film and are noticing all sorts of things we didn't before.

 

As it stands the 1.4/35 Lux ASPH probably is the best highspeed 35 out there. I've never heard anyone say otherwise. Along with the Cron ASPH, they probably constitute the best 35's money can buy. The only upgrade I could imagine that would benefit the Lux ASPH is the use of a floating element for improved close up performance, like the 50 Lux ASPH has.

 

I have the 35 Lux ASPH and the Canon 1.4/35L. My general impression is that the Canon is exceptionally good. I mean really good. It flares a little more than the Lux with backlighting etc, but it has a very beautiful finerprint.

 

But the 35L is about 3 times the size of the 35 Lux. Once you mount the 35L on an EOS body you are approaching something the size of a miniature Speed Graphic.

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

Mark, it's my understanding that Sean has not found focus shift on the Leica 35s to be out of acceptable tolerance but I also think that there are a lot of sample variation issues with them and possibly the 28 cron too: so maybe they're all up for reconsideration?

 

t

 

Books on optical design I've read talk about a "tolerance budget" which is the extent to which the theoretical design can absorb real world production tolerances before it begins to deteriorate. The 35/1.4 design does appear to be less tolerant than it might be and even with Leica's extremely fine manufacturing tolerances, there is sample variation in the finished lenses.

 

Tim's lens exhibited marked focus shift, mine does to an apparently less extent, Jamie's chrome lens does not, I've not seen Sean's results.

 

I think that, for a lens which costs as much as it does, users should not have to unwittingly enter some sort of lottery as to whether they get a good'un or a lemon.

 

Aspheric lens elements are one of the tools in the lens designer's kit bag for controlling spherical aberration which causes focus shift and since the lens came out in 1994, lens technology has moved on, especially the process of making aspheric lens elements.

 

The original 35/1.4 Aspherical (2 asph elements) gave way to the current lens (1 asph element) because of the extreme difficulty of making them. The Tri-Elmars have two ASPH elements and given the importance of the 35mm/1.4, I think the lens is due for rework, if nothing else to eliminate the sample variation. Maybe putting that second aspheric lens element back into the design mix would help.

[robbegibson]

What pricing are you all seeing for Tri-Elmars right now?

 

I'm looking at a mint used(not coded) 2nd gen lens with shade and trying to decide if it's a good enough deal to buy now or what are prices likely to do in the next few months.

 

Thanks for any input.

 

Robbe Gibson

[Shootist]

What pricing are you all seeing for Tri-Elmars right now?

 

I'm looking at a mint used(not coded) 2nd gen lens with shade and trying to decide if it's a good enough deal to buy now or what are prices likely to do in the next few months.

 

Thanks for any input.

 

Robbe Gibson

 

The real question is are going to buy a Tri-E to use or to try and make money off it. If it's to use and the cost is in your price range and that is the lens you really want then buy it and use it.

If it's to maybe make some money on then good luck. You'd be better off taking the money you would spend on that lens and investing it.

[robbegibson]

No, I don't want to resell it or collect it, just use it.

[glennedens]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new list is around $3,600, odd that it is still on the price list. I have seen them selling for full list if they are in mint condition, new and 6-bit coded. I heard of some dealers that were dumping them for $1,500 - $2,600 but that is for lenses that were in the demo pool and they get kind of beat up fast. I have not been able to find a new one in the channel anywhere.

[rsh]

I bought a new Tri Elmar 3 months ago for $1,450.00. Wolf was clearing it out.

[EricC]

I too am looking for a Tri-Elmar Ver.2 to go with my WATE as a lightweight travel combo along with one of my Summiluxes. I missed one whilst actualy talking to the dealer on the phone , another member of his staff sold it whilst we were talking. Yet another i missed by 24 hours from a private ad.

 

I do hope that they are being bought for use by the people snapping them up, rather than just profiteering.

 

Regards

Eric

[tom0511]

I still dont understand thatthey give it up. There would probably be a workaround the front glass element.

[wattsy]

I still dont understand thatthey give it up. There would probably be a workaround the front glass element.

 

Perhaps, but the lens may not be a big enough seller to warrant the effort.

 

Maybe the recent dropping of some of the lenses is a symptom of the new management dumbing down the Leica approach from a goal of optical excellence at virtually any price (and associated lack of profit) to something rather less ambitious (but more profitable)? We may start to see fewer very fast or highly complex lenses in the line-up and rather more of the more straightforward F2.8 variety.

[carstenw]

This is exactly my thoughts on this, with a slight variation. I think they will drop the poorly selling lenses with high pricetags, like the Tri-Elmar, apparently, except that I expect them to retain the showcase lenses, such as the Noctilux, regardless of how it sells. I think we will see a two-tier lens lineup, with the legendary expensive, fast lenses like the 28 Cron Asph, 35 Lux Asph and 50 Lux Asph, as well as a secondary lineup with lower pricetags, more compact dimensions, but still excellent performance, like the 28 Elmarit Asph, 35 Cron Asph, 50 Cron, and so on. This would extend to the whole line, not just the sweet spot in the centre where they already exist. This strategy would be backed up by some comments made by Stephen Lee in his long interview in the latest LFI.

[marknorton]

Leica needs a lower priced line of lenses just to keep Zeiss and CV at bay, so a 35/2.8 would make sense.

 

The 75/1.4 and MATE are gone, two of the most expensive lenses in the lineup. I think the 24/2.8 is safe but I wonder about the 21/2.8. How many are they selling with the WATE at the same price?

 

Also surprises me they soldier on with the 50mm Elmar and 3 90mm lenses and a comment on the German forum suggested the 135mm was ready for the chop.

[sdai]

I suspect a lot of today's M8 aficionados will switch to the R10 when it becomes available ... but not many R users (if not none at all) will likely come for a M. Leica probably won't waste too much energy on the M like they possibly will on the R in the future. Just my humble .02.

[wattsy]

Leica probably won't waste too much energy on the M like they possibly will on the R in the future. Just my humble .02.

 

The R system has always been a poor seller compared to the M. My London dealer claimed to sell more than ten times as much M stuff than R - and that was long before the recent M8 buying frenzy. I'm not sure that the introduction of the R10 is going to change things much (in fact, up until the recent hints about developing an R10, Leica have showed all the signs that they were just allowing the R system to wither on the line).

[sdai]

The R system has always been a poor seller compared to the M.

 

So what do you think is the reason of that, Ian? ... it just because the M users have no real alternatives.

 

You think the Japanese camera companies, Canon, Nikon, Pentax ... et.al don't know how to make manual focus cameras and lenses? because they won't sell!

 

I'm quite positive that the R10 will change the look of the horizon.

[wattsy]

So what do you think is the reason of that, Ian? ... it just because the M users have no real alternatives.

 

Your enthusiasm for the R is clear but I'm not sure I understand what your point is. The rangefinder system (Barnack stuff and M) have always been the bread and butter business for Leica. What is it about the R10 that you think will change this?

[sdai]

The rangefinder system (Barnack stuff and M) have always been the bread and butter business for Leica. What is it about the R10 that you think will change this?

 

I fully agree with you on the bread and butter comment, but I don't think more people will be sucked into this rangefinder thing. The R10 may not be able to change the M users but it'll certainly attract more customers from the C, N, P camps if it's done right ... it's changing Leica's future, not the M's future - which is my point.

[ho_co]

Simon--

Your ideas are thought-provoking as usual.

 

I think some of us are 'rangefinder people,' and see SLRs as a secondary but occasionally necessary evil.

 

On the other hand, I think there's an uncanny magic to the feel and responsiveness of the M camera, which can attract 'SLR people' on its own.

 

So it will be very interesting to see what happens when the R10 appears. Leica has had such a small part of the SLR market (despite the excellent quality and design of the R series) that the R10 is going to have to be right from top to toe to attract users from other brands. They may catch a lot of us rangefinder people, but we won't be enough to support the line.

 

"... f it's done right...," you said. I certainly hope it will be.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[carstenw]

Simon, I think the pull in the other direction is at least as strong, and Leica's sales would tend to support that viewpoint. Leica was apparently surprised by the strength of the sales of the M8, to the point of being back-ordered for months. They had apparently expected the faithful to upgrade, and a few more to start with the system, but the number of new M users was way above expectations. The M8 was my first M, and Guy's too, as well as many others.

 

I hope and expect that the R10 will eventually look similar in size and design to a Canon 5D, but this is exactly what I sold to get the M8, not because of features or flexibility, clearly, but because of bulk and weight. Even if the R10 comes out and is wonderful, and even if I do buy one, I expect that my world has shifted, and that an M will be the centre of my kit from now on. It can do almost everything that I need, and almost all of it better than a DSLR, and for the rest, I will one day buy a DSLR, but it will be my second camera, not my first.

 

I think that there is also some kind of backlash going on in the market. Retro cameras are very popular, and the technology direction seems to be acknowledging that we have gone too far in the techno gizmo direction for too long, and that simplicity is a feature, not a disadvantage. One needs only look at some of the more interesting cameras to come out and to be announced recently to see that there is a market which has been starved for a while which is now coming into its own. Not everyone wants a gizmo. Some want just a plain camera, slightly updated for the present time.

 

Rather than people being 'sucked into the rangefinder thing' I think that the reality is closer to a lot of people having been sucked into the SLR thing, and are just now finding that this is really not the camera they wanted. Too big, too heavy, too complex.