rosuna Posted December 20, 2016 Share #1 Posted December 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is this real or a fake/joke? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4052244#forum-post-58320077 . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 Hi rosuna, Take a look here New Vario-Elmar-M 28-75mm f/3.4-5.6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted December 20, 2016 Share #2 Posted December 20, 2016 A test lens said the OP. There are several 28-70/3.5-5.6 out there already. Hard to sell expensive ones i suspect unless it is considerably better, hence probably bulkier, than kit lenses like the very good €200 S**y. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted December 21, 2016 Share #3 Posted December 21, 2016 Is this real or a fake/joke? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4052244#forum-post-58320077 . Nice. IMO this kind of Vario-M would only work properly on a M equipped with a excellent EVF and if the lens and the camera are electronically connected. That said, I am not interested in a 75/5,6. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted December 21, 2016 I prefer the classical 28-50 specifications, with fixed maximum aperture of f4 and very compact design. Anyway, this lens points to a future M camera with EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 21, 2016 Share #5 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) It could work with the OVF, as a Quad-Elmar, as long as it had detents at 28, 35, 50 and 75 - then it would work like the WATE. Edited December 21, 2016 by LocalHero1953 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2016 Share #6 Posted December 21, 2016 Dr. Rohde IS a Leica beta-tester, and a rather indiscreet one. If this is true there won't be any M10 budget this year for me;.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 21, 2016 Share #7 Posted December 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would be a true zoom according to Dr Rohde but it would be too big to be used in RF mode w/o blocking the OVF a lot i suspect. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 21, 2016 Share #8 Posted December 21, 2016 Would be a true zoom according to Dr Rohde but it would be too big to be used in RF mode w/o blocking the OVF a lot i suspect. The WATE is a true zoom. But you could be right about OVF blocking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2016 Share #9 Posted December 21, 2016 Sorry to be dumb, but what is a "true zoom"? As opposed to what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 21, 2016 Share #10 Posted December 21, 2016 Sorry to be dumb, but what is a "true zoom"? As opposed to what? The MATE only works at the three named focal lengths, so is not a true zoom. The WATE works at all points in between, so is a true zoom. But I have never used any of them, so I'm going on what others say, not direct knowledge. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 21, 2016 Share #11 Posted December 21, 2016 Yes a trifocal lens like the Tri-Elmar "MATE" 28-35-50/4 offers three focal lengths only whereas a zoom lens like the Nikon 28-50/3.5 offers all focal lengths between 28 and 50mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 21, 2016 Share #12 Posted December 21, 2016 I think a range of small, multi-focal length lenses (zooms like the WATE), would sell well for an M, especially one with an upgraded EVF option. The WATE, while popular, is probably limited sales-wise by its ultra-wide lengths, and the MATE is hampered with an old design subject to mechanical issues (and, because of that old complex design, not a true zoom as noted). A 35-90 for travel would suit me fine, as would an updated MATE (28-50). Just keep them compact, well constructed and high performance, not dumbed down to reduce price. That (along with slower apertures) would also help alleviate any Leica concerns of potential cannibalization of prime lens sales. Jeff 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 22, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 22, 2016 Never heard of that lens before. Any info on price? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 22, 2016 Share #14 Posted December 22, 2016 It is a test lens (see above) so nothing official so far. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joakim Posted December 22, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 22, 2016 Sorry to be dumb, but what is a "true zoom"? As opposed to what?Your legs and feet 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 22, 2016 Share #16 Posted December 22, 2016 I have the same question. I read about Tri Elmar being a true zoom. Any example among users,in market offered as zoom but may not be a true zoom? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 22, 2016 Share #17 Posted December 22, 2016 I have the same question. I read about Tri Elmar being a true zoom. Any example among users,in market offered as zoom but may not be a true zoom? Thanks. I guess they don't exist. Lenses like the WATE and MATE, with a small number of fixed focal lengths, are only relevant for cameras without TTL like rangefinders, to allow framing. TTL cameras don't need them, because you can see the frame at all focal lengths. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted December 22, 2016 Share #18 Posted December 22, 2016 .. the MATE is hampered with an old design subject to mechanical issues (and, because of that old complex design, not a true zoom as noted). ... My MATE (version 2) never had any mechanical issues so far. And whether it is a true zoom or not is irrelevant to me, since there are only frames for 28, 35 and 50mm in the OVF anyway. And even if it were a true zoom and used with an EVF, my feet would do the 'zooming' in between each of its focal lenghts in no time, if needed, so I could not care less. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2016 Share #19 Posted December 22, 2016 Sorry to be dumb, but what is a "true zoom"? As opposed to what? On a multi-focal length lens image quality is not guaranteed at in-between settings (if the lens even allows those). On a true zoom there is a specified performance on all focal lengths. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 22, 2016 Share #20 Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) My MATE (version 2) never had any mechanical issues so far. And whether it is a true zoom or not is irrelevant to me, since there are only frames for 28, 35 and 50mm in the OVF anyway. And even if it were a true zoom and used with an EVF, my feet would do the 'zooming' in between each of its focal lenghts in no time, if needed, so I could not care less. Well, since your feet are so effective between 28-50, you really don't need a zoom in the first place....just buy a 35. Of course perspective will change every time you move closer or farther away, unlike using a zoom from a fixed place. Good that you haven't experienced problems.....not so with some others here, including me. Jeff Edited December 22, 2016 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now