Wide Angle Tri-Elmar

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Usual Mark hobby-horse, I think if you select 16 on the lens you should select 16 on the finder and get the correct frame; Andy thinks it's OK for the owner of this ~$4000 combo to have to remember to allow for the crop factor and select 21 instead when using a digital body.

 

Personally, I'd like the finder to detect what sort of camera it's on - film or digital - and adjust accordingly using for example, a lug on the hot shoe. Otherwise, there could be a manual switch or interchangeable eye-piece to change the finder magnification.

Wow. Getting complicated. Finder is black plastic, looks equally great (or measly) on black or silver chrome.

 

Only thing I can see is indicating the cropfactor in the finder: Set 16mm and see two frames, full frame is full-field 16mm, inner frame is 21 equiv. That would leave us the choice of selecting the 21 frame instead if we wanted. Better would be as you said, let the finder 'feel' the camera.

 

Tom Kline's suggestion is interesting for the square window--frame illumination. In the same direction, maybe a holder for a snap-in edge mask? Bad idea, I know. Fiddlier and fiddlier.

 

There's that chrome button on top. Maybe for a lanyard, maybe to hold in interchangeable eyepieces as you say.

 

I wear glasses and can't use the current multiple VF. This one seems to have a smaller eyecup, making it if possible even less usable for me.

 

Maybe you're right in suggesting two finders--the current one for the film line, this one for the digital line.

 

--HC

[marknorton]

This thing has been billed at the "Universal Finder" which is a pretty extravagent claim.

 

Some people think the bump is a spirit level which would be quite interesting for tripod work to stop those verticals converging. I expect there's the same arrangment as in an M viewfinder to project light coming in through the second window through the masks into the viewfinder.

 

I would have thought that for a wide-angle finder, eye comfort was paramount, especially for those who wear eye-glasses. Put a 20mm lens on a Nikon F with their old action finder and it's the easiest thing in the world to frame and it's 40 years old.

 

The news that it's plastic is not good, easily marked. Black anodised, cold to the touch, diecast aluminimum would be better. You'll be telling me it uses plastic lenses next! And what's this black Leica blob?

[wattsy]

The industrial design of that finder is truly awful. Very un-Leica.

[adan]

Actually, what Andy thinks is that he'll use his CV 15mm with a single classic 21mm Leica finder, and his 21 with either the 'full viewfinder' viewfinder of the M8, or an accesory single classic 28mm Leica finder (whichever turns out to work best in the long run).

 

I don't much like any multi-viewfinder I've seen - if I get a chance to try the new one I'll see what I think based on actually looking through it. A viewfinder is about how it depicts the subject.

 

Is it in-elegant? Probably. Image-Google "Imarect" to see what "classic Leica" design for a multi-focal-length viewfinder looks like. Elegant it ain't - but it was what H-CB and Capa used.

[wattsy]

Is it in-elegant? Probably. Image-Google "Imarect" to see what "classic Leica" design for a multi-focal-length viewfinder looks like. Elegant it ain't - but it was what H-CB and Capa used.

 

I'm not sure the Imarect is inelegant. It's a design very much of its time (I guess it's a bit 'Flash Gordon' in style). The more recent (last 10-20 years) Leica design style is more minimalist and the finder shown in this thread simply looks out of place.

[grober]

F4 is too S-L-O-W . . .

[albertwang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What happens if this dobangle costs like $8000 for the triplelens?

[Guest hammertone]

F4 is too S-L-O-W . . .

Why? You can't have narrow DOF anyway with such extreme wide angles.

[stunsworth]

I think it's more because f4 is too slow in low light than because of any issues regarding DOF.

[Guest hammertone]

I think it's more because f4 is too slow in low light than because of any issues regarding DOF.

Ok. But extreme wide-angle available light photography is something of a niche, isn't it?

[stunsworth]

Ok. But extreme wide-angle available light photography is something of a niche, isn't it?

 

Maybe that's because the lenses aren't fast enough ;-)

[supperman]

No, they're fast enough... just way too expensive; think the Leica Super-Elmarit 15mm f/2.8 R, or the Zeiss ZM 15mm f/2.8 Distagon.

 

I personally don't think f/4 is too slow. With ultra-wide angles, I tend to go for f/5.6 or so because you really don't even need to focus because the DOF is so deep. In any case, even if you're starved for light, at 16mm, you an probably handhold at 1/8s or even 1/4s without much problems.

[ho_co]

I'm not sure the Imarect is inelegant. It's a design very much of its time (I guess it's a bit 'Flash Gordon' in style). The more recent (last 10-20 years) Leica design style is more minimalist and the finder shown in this thread simply looks out of place.

Problem with the Imarect was that it was so simple. Had a single viewing angle and two L-shaped masks that narrowed the view by moving inward diagonally. I couldn't see the whole image with glasses and the image was too uncomfortably small when fully reduced. And for yet wider (was it 21mm?), you had the accessory bulbous screw-on front adapter.

 

On the other hand, Zeiss had a beautiful accessory VF. Great eye-relief, and a rotating front disc with a different lens for each focal length. I've only seen one. Bought it. Dropped it. Internal prism chipped.

 

The Zeiss design was what Zeiss did best: Beautiful, easy to use, elegant but fragile.

 

The Leitz design was practical and sturdy, usable if not optimal, robust and less expensive. (Yes, "less" expensive! )

 

--HC

[captain]

Using this lens mainly on film as a superwide I dont think its too slow. You can usually hand hold wider lenses for longer exposures. I think this lens and finder is a great idea. I only hope its affordable! I wonder if it accepts filters and if so what size?

[marknorton]

You seem to be contradicting yourself - first you say it's not fast enough but then you say you can use longer exposures with wider lenses.

 

Affordable is a relative term. Rumour is that it's €3500 which equates to about $3800 + tax or £2400.

 

The issue with filters will be vignetting. Someone commented that it's unusual for Leica to show pictures of their lenses with lens hoods fitted. It's possible the front element of this lens protrudes making the hood permanently fixed to protect it. In that case, filters are unlikely unless there's some sort of rear filter. The Nikon 14mm f2.8 is just the same, fixed lens hood to protect the front element and rear filters.

[captain]

"You seem to be contradicting yourself - first you say it's not fast enough"

 

I suggest you read again, I didnt say any such thing.

 

The point about the hood and filters is valid at the aperture indicating mark is on the hood which suggests its fixed there and no filters may be possible.

[marknorton]

Using this lens mainly on film as a superwide I dont think its too slow.

 

So leaving aside the dismal grammar, what were you trying to say here? My reading of it is "the lens is too slow to use mainly as a superwide on film".

 

But who knows? Who cares?

[captain]

What part of " I dont think its too slow" dont you understand? With a film camera, using this lens as a superwide it is easier to hand hold because you can hand hold it at slower speeds.

 

I see the grammar police are in full force today! Its an internet forum, lighten up geez!

[leicapfile]

It may very well be, that the intro of a wide angle Tri-Elmar (with a new finder), along with the M8 and its crop factor, are mutually exclusive events. However, there may be a symbiotic relationship betwixt the two.

 

If in fact the new WA Tri can be used on the film Ms, then certainly at least for two of the focal lengths, this new finder will be needed. Not like Leica to introduce a new lens in the superwide catagory with out an accompanying finder.

 

The unanswered question is, again because of the crop factor on the M8, will there be two versions. One to use on film Ms, and one for the digital M8. Perhaps, if the finder is sold with the WA Tri, that's a question you'll have to answer when you purchase as there may be two finder versions.

 

A clue might be that the frameline selections run from 16 through 28. The latter three being existing Leica current focal lengths. It may have nothing to do with the M8 as pictured, although there may be a M8 version. After all, that would simply be a question of how the masks are cut.

 

If the finder is ever available as a separate entity, it will doubtless be expensive, whatever it is encased in. I suspect plastic however, as one of the problems of the old metal ones was their vulnerability when dropped.

 

This one may come with a Pass Port however, and then of course a CLA every 10 years or so!

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

I'm not sure how to interpret "mutually exclusive events"(?)

 

The Tri-Elmar 16/18/21 exists for no other purpose than to reproduce the traditional 21/24/28 fields of view on the cropped M8. It will also work on film full-frame (as Leica promised many moons ago - no "digital-only" lenses for the M) as a super-wide Tri-Elmar, which is a bonus for any film-users who want 16 or 18mm super-wide fields of view.

 

But it would not exist EXCEPT for the existence of the M8 - which to me makes them mutually INCLUSIVE events. I just don't believe Leica suddenly decided - after 50 years selling nothing wider than 21mm* - that the key accesories film Ms lacked all this time were 16 and 18mm focal lengths.

 

*except a brief flirt with the Zeiss Hologon 15mm - which was never even a "Leica" product, simply marked "fur Leica-M" by Zeiss.

 

There is one viewfinder for this lens, intended for use on either film (full-frame) or the cropped digital body. As such, it covers the three fields of view this lens produces for digital (21/24/28 effective) and the three fields of view for film (16/18/21). Since 21 is a duplicate - five actual settings are required. These 5 are clearly visible in the picture, beside the frameline setting knob just above the serrated illumination window (top front).

 

If Leica were going to produce separate "film" and "digital" versions of the finder - they would only need 3 settings on each - 16/18/21 "full-frame"; and 16/18/21 "cropped" - so we would not be seeing 5 settings. (Assuming the picture is real, which I can do for 10 days in the absence of other evidence.)

 

Use it on digital, ignore the two widest settings, and set it for the "effective" focal length (a calculation that takes all of 1.33 seconds).

 

Use it on film, and one has the choice to ignore the 21/24/28 settings, or to use them, if one owns 21, 24 or 28mm lenses, in place of the various existing/previous finders for those focal lengths.

 

Is f/4 slow? IMHO - sort of. I'd prefer a straight 15-16mm f/2.8 lens, myself (screw the people who like the 24mm FoV (wink!)).

 

BUT - Leica's attitude was a bit more generous than mine, so they came up with a way to provide both fields of view (plus 28mm) while keeping the R&D costs down by doing it in one lens.

 

Given how big this lens already is at f/4, (and seeing the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 as another example) - an f/2.8 Tri-Elmarit would have blocked the RF window. One needs to remember that RFs have different design constraints than SLRs - so one can't just replicate something like a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 with an M-mount attached and expect it to work.