Wide Angle Tri-Elmar

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using the diameter of the bayonet ring in the picture as a reference, it looks like the new Tri-Elmar - if this is a valid picture - is about the same diameter as the existing Tri-Elmar, 55mm and 4-5mm longer, at about 72mm in front of the bayonet seating plane.

[marknorton]

One other thought is that the pictures of both the Tri-Elmar and the new 28mm Elmarit ASPH show the rear lens elements protruding into the camera as is usual for wide lenses. This is interesting because it shows Leica have not needed to change their established practice of having rear lens elements close to the focal plane. That in turn tells me that the in the M8, the combination of the sensor design, lens coding and firmware image enhancements has the "sensor light fall-off" problem licked.

[lct]

...pictures of both the Tri-Elmar and the new 28mm Elmarit ASPH show the rear lens elements protruding into the camera...

I haven't seen a pic of the new 28/2.8 so far.

Have you got a link, Mark?

[marknorton]

Here's a link to RFF...

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27856

[leicapfile]

Andy,

 

By 'mutually exclusive' I met that I'm not certain there would necessarily would be a WA Tri introduced only because of the M8. If it works on the film Ms as suspected, could it not have been produced without a M8 intro? As a stand alone as it were product.

 

The symbiotic relationship was to infer that the finder apparantly can be used on both, although there is the crop factor on the M8.

 

Which brings me to the aux multi focal length VF pictured earlier:

 

If I was composing last nights thread (and thinking harder when I did so), I would not have put forth the supposition two aux VFs would/may be necessary, i.e. one for the film Ms and a different one for the M8. How is this so?

 

Well, for quite some time now there has been this high end RF camera manufacturer who has put TWO frames (such as they are) in the VF to show two different focal lengths coverage.

 

And I suspect now they have with this aux VF they will continue to do so. Mount a WA Tri (or other WA of 28mm or less on either a film M or M8, and you'll get TWO sets of framelines in the aux finder when you move the wheel to the focal length mounted. Say you put the your 21mm on your film M. Set it at the 21mm position and the outer lines will show 21mm FOV. The inner lines will reflect the FOV for the 28mm FOV on the M8, given the crop factor. And so on.

 

That's probably the reason the damn thing is so big, and probably expensive. It emulates the current internal VF to a great degree. And they'll sell a lot of the WA Tri w/finder to people who will never buy a an M8.

 

Boy, was I asleep last night.

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[lct]

Here's a link to RFF...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27856

Cute little lens indeed.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I heard it was a 2.8 lens and if that is the case it should be a real sweetie

[marknorton]

Guy, are you saying the Tri-Elmar is actually an Elmarit? All depends on whether you believe the pictures.

[albertwang]

What is the optical formula for this lens?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Mark all I heard was the Tr-elmar is 2.8 and not F4. If it is than this maybe a great lens to have. I have heard more about the M8 than the new lens releases. I can't say anything but the M8 is better than we expected or should i say everything we are expecting and that we have talked about about it's abilities.

[adan]

Jerry; That's what I thought you meant - and respectfully feel otherwise. Leica said (in the little that they HAVE said publicly) that they realized an M-digital with a less-than-full-frame sensor would require the existence of a wider lens than the current 21mm, to maintain the range photographers are used to.

 

I just don't think they would have invested in the creation of a lens, apparently the most expensive they've ever sold for the M, with relatively limited usefulness on a film body, except that it is "required" (in their words) anyway for the digital body.

 

Mark Norton did a survey on the RFF of how many film shooters would buy a superwide for film - I'll let him tell us what his results were, but as I recall the demand for such a lens absent the need to shoot wide on a cropped sensor was very low.

 

You (and others) might turn out to be right that the new finder shows two frames for each focal length, for film and digital crop. Hmm! Although I'd think the 28 setting would be totally redundant (since both film and the M8 cameras already frame for 28mm lenses). But then the Tri-Elmar superwide 21mm focal length is also redundant to the existing prime lenses. If one is building a biggish finder anyway, it may as well cover 5 focal lengths as 4 (just as the lens may as well cover 3 focal lengths as 2).

 

Alfie: Now that two lenses (the 16/18/21 and the 28) have crept into the discussion - WHICH optical formula did you want to know? Not that anyone outside Leica knows either of them yet.

 

Mark: regarding the placement of the rear element - that is not the critical factor in determining the "digital friendliness" of a lens design. The rear elements of the lenses in both the Digilux 2 and the Sony R1 (as well as a host of other digicams) practically TOUCH the image surface, yet produce very little vignetting.

 

If a lens is "telecentric" - i.e. physically long and wide so that the light tends to fall on all parts of the image surface from directly in front - the actual backfocus distance is not an issue. The problem for Leica is, of course, that the EXISTING film-based wide-angles are not telecentric designs. And for non-telecentric designs - THEN lengthening the backfocus (as in a retrofocus SLR film lens) has the effect of simulating the telecentric effect.

 

The shape and size of the Super-wide Tri-Elmar looks like a long, tubular "telecentric" design to me (as well it should, if Leica has paid any attention to digital lens design development over the past decade).

 

The 28 formula? Who knows? Likely a derivative of either the 28 'cron or 35 'cron formula (which are themselves related).

 

Guy: The picture shows an f/4 lens - no f/2.8 engraved on the aperture ring. The name (Tri-ELMAR) implies f/3.5 or smaller under Leica's naming conventions. However - this just a picture - even easier to Photoshop than a camera body. (see below - drawing I posted 2 years BEFORE Leica announced the real 75 ASMA - easy to fantasize in Photoshop). I'd LOVE f/2.8 (either a tri or a prime).

 

9 days to go...

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!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Andy i agree i thought it was F4 all along than i was corrected by someone that i know and trust but maybe that is wrong also. Seriously though i hope I am right a 2.8 i would jump all over, big is relative i shoot R lenses . LOL

 

But with the 1.33 crop it becomes a 21, 24 and 28 just add a 35 1.4(50)and a 75 f2(100) and call it a day 3 lenses and i would be happy as can be and have one fast one in there the 35 1.4. Wow that would be a nice setup for sure but even if F4 for the Tri-Elmar would certainly not hurt the cause either. Certainly would be a smaller package. only 10 days and we will know for sure but the M8 again you all will be pleased. I also heard 3200 US for the lens

[Goldie]

The remark about a fixed lens hood, because it has the aperture index mark on its rim seems incorrect. The present Tri Elmar's index mark is in the same position, but on the lens barrel. Probably what is happening is because the lens is a wide-angle, the lens hood has to be mounted on the outside of the lens barrel to prevent vignetting, so the lens hood has to have a replacement marking on it. Also I find it hard to believe that Leica would produce a lense incapable of taking filters. Of course this lense might not even exist!