Leica Bi-Elmarit M

[Danner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a great idea.  35&50, or 28&50, f2.8, about the size of a Summilux 50, little finder blockage.

I would buy that.  People would by that.

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

In case it's of interest, Konica produced a M-Hexanon Dual 21-35 f/3.4-4.0.  They're not very common but they do pop up from time to time particularly in the Ginza camera shops in Tokyo.

Considering that the 28-35-50 f/4 MATE is already quite a bit larger than the 50/1.4 Summilux asph and you're proposing a 'Bi-Elmarit' that's a stop faster I suspect that unfortunately it would have to grow larger than the MATE.

Pete.

[Matlock]

10 hours ago, farnz said:

In case it's of interest, Konica produced a M-Hexanon Dual 21-35 f/3.4-4.0.  They're not very common but they do pop up from time to time particularly in the Ginza camera shops in Tokyo.

Pete.

I have one, it's a great lens but rather large with a fair bit of finder intrusion.

[farnz]

28 minutes ago, Matlock said:

I have one, it's a great lens but rather large with a fair bit of finder intrusion.

I do too and it's about the same size as my 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph.  The hood makes it look larger and I've never understood why they added such a broad lens information ring on the front that increases the filter size to 62 mm when the diameter of the front element and its holding ring is only 46 mm.  There plenty of room on the front element's ring to put the lens details as is done on Leica lenses.  The unnecessary ring at the front does intrude into the rangefinder at 35 mm I agree but it becomes irrelevant at 21 mm of course.

Without the nonsense at the front it's the same size as my Summilux, which I don't consider to be a big lens when compared with a 50 Noctilux, 75 Noctilux, 90 APO Summicron asph etc. 🙂 

Pete.

[jdlaing]

I have the 21/35 and it’s great.

[adan]

4 hours ago, farnz said:

The hood makes it look larger and I've never understood why they added such a broad lens information ring on the front that increases the filter size to 62 mm when the diameter of the front element and its holding ring is only 46 mm.

Try mounting an E46 filter (or two - people do do that) on that lens and shooting at 21mm - and you will soon find out why the lens is designed for 62mm filters.

Vignetting. And a curved front element that has to clear any filter.

The 21mm Elmarit-M pre-ASPH (with a very protruding front surface) was originally designed (and a few built) as an E49 lens - Leica rapidly added a wider ring on the front, for 60mm filters. User feedback.

Compare also 19mm Elmarit-Rs v.1 and v.2.

The 21 Super-Elmar ASPH can get away with 46mm because the front element is so flat (relatively speaking). And is not a zoom.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by adan

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, adan said:

Try mounting an E46 filter (or two - people do do that) on that lens and shooting at 21mm - and you will soon find out why the lens is designed for 62mm filters.

Vignetting. And a curved front element that has to clear any filter.

The 21mm Elmarit-M pre-ASPH (with a very protruding front surface) was originally designed (and a few built) as an E49 lens - Leica rapidly added a wider ring on the front, for 60mm filters. User feedback.

Compare also 19mm Elmarit-Rs v.1 and v.2.

The 21 Super-Elmar ASPH can get away with 46mm because the front element is so flat (relatively speaking). And is not a zoom.

 

Hi Andy,

Thank you for your reply.  I take your point about the potential for vignetting with filters.  I only use filters for infrared photography so it never occurred to me.

The Hexanon-Dual has a much less prominent or curved front element than either the 19/2.8 Elmarit-R II or the 21/2.8 Kobalux (I don't have a 21/2.8 Elmarit-M pre to compare) so, by sight, I'd be surprised if clearance above the front surface would present a particular problem.  Clearly Konica's designers decided otherwise and hence the 62 mm filter thread.

Pete.

[mmradman]

16 hours ago, Danner said:

It's a great idea.  35&50, or 28&50, f2.8, about the size of a Summilux 50, little finder blockage.

I would buy that.  People would by that.

When advocating Bi and Tri versions of RF coupled lenses consider frame line selection, standard pairs are 28-90, 35-135 and 50-75. Notable exceptions are wide Tri-Elmar or WATE which is 16-18-21 and outside above constraint, it only need to select one frame line which is 28mm I think. Other Tri lens is MATE which is 28-35-50mm and has complicated mechanical lens mount to enable lens selection, probably lens that didn’t earn Leica much.  Hexanon 21-35mm again falls outside standard frame line selection, never handled the lens but assuming it is M rather than LTM it would  be selecting 35mm, appreciate if owners can confirm.

So any Bi lens to be true RF and to avoid mechanical complication of earlier MATE would have to select two paired FL or one paired and other outside the range, maybe 21-28 or 21-35 or 21-50. Note 24mm doesn’t appear to be big M seller for Leica.

[jdlaing]

The only frame lines picked by  the 21/35 are 35/135.

[mmradman]

6 hours ago, jdlaing said:

The only frame lines picked by  the 21/35 are 35/135.

Thanks, of course 135mm frame lines are not all that useful at 21mm lens setting.

[luigi bertolotti]

I am well disposed to bet that Leica won't make anymore M multifocals : with SL and CL they have much better platforms for such designs... the rather recent quad 28-90 (made in Japan) was stopped at protype's stage... too costly to build, expected sales volumes clearly not in line with economic return.

 

[jdlaing]

12 hours ago, mmradman said:

Thanks, of course 135mm frame lines are not all that useful at 21mm lens setting.

An accessory 21 ovf is included with the lens. A very nice one at that.