Jump to content

why tri-elmar discontinued

Scott Root

By Scott Root
in Leica M8 / Leica M8.2

 Share

Recommended Posts

DavidStone

DavidStone

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy wrote:

 

"The cutaway that we saw of the MATE was truly a work of Art . There is so much brass in there that we were really all amazed by all the channels built into it. if someone has this lens not sure you should ever sell it just because i have never seen anything that complex in a lens."

 

I'd been thinking of selling mine because I found it much less useful on the M8 than on the M6. Now I'm starting to reconsider. Having gone to the trouble of getting it coded and having the 49mm IR filter as one of my freebies and then spending a small fortune on the special lenshood because the filter is now a lot further forward than the front element, and now reading your comments on its complexity and that there will probably never be another, maybe I really should keep it. I've been looking back on the shots I've taken with this lens and the image quality really is amazingly good. So it looks like reprieve time. Thanks for that bit of extra persuasion.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

rosuna

rosuna

Posted
Posted
these designs are 10 , 20, 30 years old now and the materials to design them have been scarce and also design changes for the better are in place and the cost to build these older designs is through the roof and the raw materials hard to get.

 

What old lenses are being revised by Leica at this moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ArtZ

ArtZ

Posted
Posted

An image is worth 1000 words!

 

Just four pictures I took today with the MATE

 

L1000041.JPG ISO-320 1/60 f4 35mm

 

L1000024;JPG ISO-320 1/250 f4 50mm

 

L1000038.JPG ISO-320 1/90 f4 28mm

 

L1000046.JPG ISO-640 1/6 f4 35mm (hand held)

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
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
I had and still have the first version, got the second version but results on Kodachrome of my first version were better so I sold the new one.

When I got my M8, I was amazed at the quality of this lens.

maurice

 

Surprising that your got different results, the optical cell is identical. there must be some sample variation then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Guest guy_mancuso

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy wrote:

 

"The cutaway that we saw of the MATE was truly a work of Art . There is so much brass in there that we were really all amazed by all the channels built into it. if someone has this lens not sure you should ever sell it just because i have never seen anything that complex in a lens."

 

I'd been thinking of selling mine because I found it much less useful on the M8 than on the M6. Now I'm starting to reconsider. Having gone to the trouble of getting it coded and having the 49mm IR filter as one of my freebies and then spending a small fortune on the special lenshood because the filter is now a lot further forward than the front element, and now reading your comments on its complexity and that there will probably never be another, maybe I really should keep it. I've been looking back on the shots I've taken with this lens and the image quality really is amazingly good. So it looks like reprieve time. Thanks for that bit of extra persuasion.

 

David

 

 

David i would check with the collector folks since they really have there pulse on this kind of thing. We which was about twn of us wer just looking at the cutaway in amazement. It is really a work of art in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
leicapfile

leicapfile

Posted
Posted

Some one will correct me if I'm wrong but I can certainly echo Guys second assertion for discontinuance of the 28-35-50 Tri Elmar.

 

The design of the v1 tri, was extremely complex, mainly due to the necessary mechanics to change the VF frames as one went from one focal length to another. As anyone who seen a cut away of the necessary gear to accomplish this, or used one for that matter, it is truly a marvel. I guess they'll become a rarity now, especially in chrome like mine.

 

Other than more 'Barrel' distortion than normal at 28mm, performance to my eye says that it equals the pre ASPH primes of the last decades, albeit slower of course.

 

My understanding is that the ver 2 Tri, simplified these VF changing mechanics some what, along with including the DOF scales. All I've read says that optically they are identical, so the comment about glass availability probably holds true

 

Don't have, nor will I get a WATE, but from what I understand from various posts is that it differs significantly from the MATE in two areas. First it does not change VF frames as the MATE does as focal length is changed. No need I guess, as there are no frames in the body that correspond to its focal length. Hence the need for some sort of AUX finder.

 

Secondly, I am to understand that that the WATE is a true 'zoom' lens, whereas the MATE is certainly not. While the optics may run the same or perhaps more than did the MATE, the mechanics and assembly I suspect are less.

 

Finally for the conspiracy theorists. The land of my forefathers isn't generally known for making anything of low quality. Leica is no exception. If the design and performance isn't good enough for them, it won't get out the door.

 

The practical results of that philosophy are, I'm sure, the reason most of us are on, and contribute to this forum.

 

I'll hold on to my MATE, as long as I'm able to use it.

 

Jerry

Link to post
Share on other sites
marknorton

marknorton

Posted
Posted

I certainly regret the end of the Tri-Elmar. An ideal lens for travelling light, just last weekend I took just it and a 90/4 and I was pleased with the flexibility even that small outfit gave me.

 

"Officially", Leica said the Tri-Elmar was withdrawn with "no replacement planned" but that might be a bit like Nikon saying they had no plans for a full frame camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lars_bergquist

lars_bergquist

Posted
Posted

It is plainly necessary for Leica to clean up their palette of M lenses. Three different lenses in any one focal length for a small volume camera like the M is simply an untenable economic proposition. We already have word that the 90mm Elmarit and the 50mm Elmar are on the death list. My guess is that most Summicrons too are endangered; the distance between f:2.5 and 2.0 is simply too small. So, if your dream lens is a 50mm Summicron, go out and find it! My prognosis for the Macro-Elmar is not that good either. And Leica may try to get rid of the Apo-Telyt too (while they should instead put goggles on it, of course).

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar

Link to post
Share on other sites
marknorton

marknorton

Posted
Posted

I agree, though keeping a lens in the catalog is easy if you never make any. The 75mm Summilux is still listed though it's generally agreed to have been discontinued. No official word from Leica though.

 

Most Summicrons? I would have thought the 28, 75 and 90 Summicrons were safe, the 35 probably too, leaving only the 50 vulnerable.

 

Does seem clear they will lose 1 50 and 1 90 (as well as that 75) but how much deeper will the knife cut? Maybe the 90/4 is in danger, depends on how wedded they are to the M having a semi-macro capability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted

The 90 macro always felt like a technical exercise to me, as if someone gave the brief to a newly hired designer "How would you make a close up lens for the M", and the suggested design was good enough to make it to manufacture. I can't imagine it being a best seller.

 

I'd think most of the Summicrons are safe, unless the new lenses match their performance. The f2.8 lenses are another matter. All IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...