adan Posted July 16, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Last time I did this, I predicted a 75 'cron APO-ASPH - and Leica actually produced exactly what I drew (except a bit heavier) a couple of years later. That post is still over in the Photo.net Leica forum archives somewhere. [edit: Here...Leica and Rangefinders Forum: Care to join me in a little fantasy? - photo.net ] Tip of the hat to John Milich and the Leica engineers for the red locking front thread (a la WATE) - and the idea of using it to accept a compact filter adapter for M8 use. Thoughts? (BTW the big versions of the lens and accesories are life-size on a 96ppi monitor - may be larger or smaller on your screen). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/29080-dream-time/?do=findComment&comment=306889'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Hi adan, Take a look here Dream Time. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted July 16, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 16, 2007 Well, holding my 75/2 up against your prediction and the resemblance is uncanny! It would be great if such a lens could be as compact as this - it would certainly steal a march on the Zeiss Distogon 15/2.8, being rangefinder coupled as well. Have you figured out the internal lens element arrangement yet? LOL... BTW, you forgot the red blob... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 16, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 16, 2007 Adan, Leica actually did consider designing such a lens. They (in contradistinction to you) did find however that it would be as big and heavy as the Zeiss 15mm offering, which weighs half a kilogram and uses 72mm filters. I suspect that the lens you are dreaming of would have a speed of f:4. If Leica had accepted this fact, they would have had a useful wide-angle lens, and not the current monstrosity. I also suspect that the maker of the 16mm lens will be Cosina, and that the lens will be restricted to an image circle to suit the M8 only. My reference is LFI 1/2007 p.48. The old man from the Age of the Box Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted July 16, 2007 Mark: Yeah, I KNEW I'd miss something! I'll add it before sending it to Stefan Daniel. Lars: I suspect it will be a challenge, although look at the Cosina 15. I'm giving Leica a fair amount of leeway in bulking up the size to get from f/4.5 to f/2.8. In HIS LFI interview, Mr. Lee seemed to indicate that his goal at Leica was to change the culture a bit from "It has to be perfect" to "It has to be very good - and saleable". As I recall his quote, "Not all customers need 60% contrast at 40 lppm at f/1.4." Which might mean a very good lens in a rational size for an M body rather than an superb lens in a size too big to sell. I'm hoping this might serve as a target. I.E. ask, "How good a lens can we design in this package?" - and if it is as good as the CV (and close to 2 stops faster) I can get excited about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 16, 2007 Share #5 Posted July 16, 2007 Nice dream, well depicted ... and f 3,5 could be a right choice if they would decide... slightly more than the WATE, better than CV, lighter than Zeiss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 18, 2007 Share #6 Posted July 18, 2007 ... continue to dream how I'd like a Leica 16 prime... I wonder if they could arrange "embedded" filter turret with proper ring... was the "Super Elmarit" prospected name that made it come to my mind tht so is in the Leica/Zeiss Super Elmar 15 for SLR. Would be fine... 3 choices NoFilter-ND2x-IRUV ... or 4 with two "degrees" of IR/UV... mmhhh.. this maybe would bring some problem with coding & firmware...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fin Posted July 18, 2007 Share #7 Posted July 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Major Caveat to this post: I am not an optical engineer:D Nice lust object! That would definitely be serious "next buy" contender. Question: If Leica already produce the WATE at F4, what's to stop them making a prime 16mm which is smaller and faster? Or am I missing a point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 18, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 18, 2007 Andy--Now please predict the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted July 18, 2007 Share #9 Posted July 18, 2007 Great rendering Andy - the only nit to pick is - IMHO - that we'd never see "16mm" on the barrell but just "16"... Other than that, I surely hope you're right with this one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2007 Share #10 Posted July 18, 2007 Looks like a 'D' lens made for APS cameras. Why not after all? Very few people would buy a monster like the Cosina-Zeiss 15/2.8 anyway. 'C' lenses have been made by Leica already, why not 'D' ones? What about being a bit more pragmatic Messrs Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 18, 2007 Share #11 Posted July 18, 2007 Andy--Now please predict the price. Just to invent... supposed it's NOT a 2,8 but a 3,5... less than WATE... more than 21 Asph... let's say 75% to 85% the price of the WATE, reffered to the lens ONLY. For the finder... it depends... if they would like to do a costly one, it had to be REALLY fine for some specific content... otherwise of course any 21mm for FF is good, and many exist... personally I'wouldn't pay a dime for its VF...as lot of people I have a Leica 21. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 19, 2007 Share #12 Posted July 19, 2007 Just to invent... supposed it's NOT a 2,8 but a 3,5... less than WATE... more than 21 Asph... let's say 75% to 85% the price of the WATE, reffered to the lens ONLY. For the finder... it depends... if they would like to do a costly one, it had to be REALLY fine for some specific content... otherwise of course any 21mm for FF is good, and many exist... personally I'wouldn't pay a dime for its VF...as lot of people I have a Leica 21. ... Made an inconsistent marketing exercise, seems... I checked current (Italy) prices... 21 Asph costs about the same the WATE w/o VF... even slightly more... my assumption "more than 21 less than WATE" so becomes a math absurdity... oh, damn, if they'll make it let's hope into a fair price, stop.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 19, 2007 Share #13 Posted July 19, 2007 ... Which might mean a very good lens in a rational size for an M body rather than an superb lens in a size too big to sell. ... Size was at one time extremely important to Leitz. We members of the US salesforce were told by the chief of lens design in Midland that it was a major issue. The inference I drew from that part of his presentation was that the then-current 35/1.4 could be improved, but only at the expense of size; and there was the question whether Leica M users would accept such large lenses. Seems in the meanwhile that question has been answered in the affirmative. I like your idea on the 16/2.8, Andy. Guy's comments after visiting Leicaland seemed to imply that more wideangles are coming, and this may be one of them! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haribo Posted July 19, 2007 Share #14 Posted July 19, 2007 ... Mr. Lee seemed to indicate that his goal at Leica was to change the culture a bit from "It has to be perfect" to "It has to be very good - and saleable". ... "It has to be perfect" ... That's sums up nicely German mentality. It's hard to change that mindset. Considering how 'flexible' Germans tend to be, it's close to impossible. Too bad, love your idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 19, 2007 Share #15 Posted July 19, 2007 Size was at one time extremely important to Leitz. We members of the US salesforce were told by the chief of lens design in Midland that it was a major issue. The inference I drew from that part of his presentation was that the then-current 35/1.4 could be improved, but only at the expense of size; and there was the question whether Leica M users would accept such large lenses. Seems in the meanwhile that question has been answered in the affirmative. I like your idea on the 16/2.8, Andy. Guy's comments after visiting Leicaland seemed to imply that more wideangles are coming, and this may be one of them! --HC Compared to the Zeiss monster, a Summilux-M 1.4/35mm is a midget. It's about the size and heft of an old-style 50mm Summilux, no more. The dream of a 16mm 2.8 lens of reasonable size, weight and price on the other hand is so wildly unrealistic that we could just as well dream of a 16mm Summilux while we're at it. Meanwhile the CV15 Miliched front and rear serves very well. But, a 16mm 4.0 with a traditional bright frame finder would be a viable proposition, 1) because of RF coupling, and 2) more importantly, because it would force Leica to invent a dedicated 16mm coding, so we wouldn't see that pop-up menu popping up. Get moving, Mr. Lee. The old man from the Age of Prime Lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 20, 2007 Share #16 Posted July 20, 2007 Lars-- I agree that a 16/2.8 is not reasonable, and had already been considered by Leica according to the LFI article. Just doing the math: According to the spec sheet, the max diameter of the WATE is ca 54 mm. If that's the diameter of the front element (I don't have one to measure), increasing it by a factor of 1.4 would give us a front element large enough to admit twice the light but would mean a diameter of just over 76 mm. I'm sure the front element would be a bit smaller than that, but it still seems to me that f/2.8 would be a bit large. Plus, it's already available from Zeiss, big and heavy though it is. My feeling--I know we differ here--is that offering a lens a bit slower, but with a choice of three focal lengths is a better choice for Leica. That said, I know they have surprises up their sleeve, and Andy's "Impossible Dream" may be one of them. It's certainly nice to contemplate. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.