Petition for a Bi-Elmar 28-50

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The subject of the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 has been raised here several times.
Here I would like to promote a modern recalculation and design.
 

Currently, I used the MATE intensively on a long trip. What strikes me is that I never use 35mm.
 

Elmar?. So that the object becomes handy and because you rarely need larger apertures for travel photos.  
50mm ? Because you don't need a larger focal length with today's sensor quality.
Bi? Because 2 focal lengths cover the need.
28mm ? Or less? If a 24mm is possible distortion-free considering the above criteria. Why not!

 

if we are numerous, perhaps the marketing department will stop?

 

i am in favor and would buy it immediately.

[Advertisement]

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

[raizans]

I’d love a 28-35-50mm f/2.8 Tri-Elmar.

Edited August 26, 2023 by raizans

[hjddd]

My friend has test the len on M11， surprisingly the photos come out good enough。 but I have to say most of the MATE now need a complete CLA。 

[Jeff S]

While there is support for an updated multi-focal length lens, the recent discussion here showed that there are varied opinions on the preferred configuration. My most used focal lengths on a M (except the M8.2) are 35 and 50mm; travel doesn’t change that.

 

I would have no interest in one without corresponding frame lines (e.g., 21 or 24mm as some suggest), and I’m not a fan of the 75mm frame lines. 

The most desired changes, apart from focal length, are a more simplified and reliable mechanical design, and the reduction in flare at 50mm.  If a bi-Elmar design can achieve these goals better than a tri-Elmar, I’m all for it.  
 

Jeff

[lct]

Don't count me in sorry. You say you are not interested in 35mm but most people are. Now, the way i use it, the MATE is a lens for crop cameras. I'd prefer a 35-50-75 but it's me.

Edited August 26, 2023 by lct

[Robert Blanko]

I would prefer 24 mm + 50 mm. With the current high resolution sensors the intermediate focal lengths could be achieved via cropping and I suppose that a lens with two interchangeable focal lengths is easier to design and implement than with three interchangeable focal lengths.

Ideally, this would also allow for achieving f 2.8 or better instead of f 4.0.

[Bronco McBeast]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/26/2023 at 7:56 AM, SiggiGun said:

The subject of the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 has been raised here several times.
Here I would like to promote a modern recalculation and design.
 

Currently, I used the MATE intensively on a long trip. What strikes me is that I never use 35mm.
 

—————-

 

 

It’s a KNOWN FACT that all zooms only have Two focal lengths: both ends.

99% of shots are always done on both ends.

You are not a 35mm shooter with a 28-70mm zoom, but believe me, you will become a hardcore 35mm user with a 17-35mm zoom.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Bronco McBeast

[Huss]

I'm waiting for a mono-elmar.  

[MarkP]

I’ve been mentioning this for years on the Forum.

I’m in !

[nitroplait]

I really like the idea but I probably wouldn't buy the product if it came to market.

A combination of my two preferred focal lengths (whether that be 28+35, 28+50 etc.) in the smallest form currently available on the market would probably not only be cheaper, but also lighter as well as equal or better in performance compared to a bi-focal. 

Think: Elmarit ASPH 28/2.8 + Elmar-M 50/2.8 (180g+165g) (or a Summarit-M 50).
I imagine a Leica Bi-focal 28-50/2.8 (or even a 28-50/4.0) would be bigger and quite a bit more expensive. - And besides I wouldn't have the option of leaving half the package at home.

It becomes even more hopeless from my perspective if you expand beyond the Leica brand where you can go even more compact without compromising quality.
How about: Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28/2.8 (106g) and Color-Skopar 35/2.5 (134g)?

Of course, Leica does not produce lenses only to satisfy rational demands, so who knows? I certainly would applause if such a lens was created. I wouldn't mind owning it either but would probably never buy it unless it came with some really unique image rendering properties.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by nitroplait

[RexGig0]

I realize that it would probably be too much of an outlier to be commercially successful, but I would be more interested in a 35mm-50mm Bi-Elmar, that prompted the camera to show 50mm frame lines. The edges of the viewfinder would suffice to frame 35mm, at least for my eyes. For me to spend the money, however, both 50mm and 35mm would have to produce really good images. My three favored and most-used focal lengths, for Leica M cameras, are 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm.

Why not 28mm, as one of two focal lengths? I simply do not find 28mm to be sufficiently interesting, much preferring 35mm, and, the availability of some quite compact 28mm lenses makes it practicable to keep a second camera body, with a compact 28mm lens affixed, in a belt pouch, allowing for a “quick draw.” My compact 28mm is a threaded-mount Summaron. Yes, I will admit that having more than one M camera enables me to have this bias. (When my first Leica M camera, an original-version M10, had to go to Leica Camera USA in NJ for repair, after a mishap, I saw the addition of a pre-owned, older-generation M camera as a way to quickly resume rangefinder shooting.)

A WABE (Wide Angle Bi Elmar) that would interest me would be 21mm and 35mm. I have, in the past, considered acquiring the Konica 21-35mm, already mentioned by Al Brown, in post #2. 

I am not being critical of those who prefer 28mm and 50mm. I will admire and like 28mm images, shot by others. I am simply able to frame better-created images with a 35mm lens.

[SiggiGun]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Bronco McBeast:

—————-
 

 

It’s a KNOWN FACT that all zooms only have Two focal lengths: both ends.

99% of shots are always done on both ends.

You are not a 35mm shooter with a 28-70mm zoom, but believe me, you will become a hardcore 35mm user with a 17-35mm zoom.

 

to be clear. If I use fixe focal lenses, 70% of my images are taken with a 35mm lens (f2.0 or f1.4). If I am using the Tri-Elmar, I am doing what you say 28mm OR 50mm. And If need I will crop. 

[Zeitblom]

I also like to use the 35mm setting on my MATE, when 50mm is too small and 28mm shows too much.
Any bet, if a 28+50mm bifocal zoom lens was delivered, everyone would be searching and marking the 35mm position. 

[raizans]

35mm would probably be the most popular setting, with 28mm and 50mm for when you need it. Rangefinder users are built different.

[TomSchmitt]

I’d be in. Any focal length without framelines I’d reject (like 21 or 24), and a 35-50 angle of view is too close together for me. I’d rather crop a 28 to a 35 with 40MP on an M11, although I recognize that the ‘cropability’ with an M10 or older is limited, as is with film cameras. 
In addition I’d explore a 28-50 Elmarit. Not sure how much bigger it would be compared to an Elmar, but not only would I like the additional stop but also the presumably better IQ in the stopped down lens. 

[mirekti]

If I had to choose it would be a 50-90mm TATE
A constant f/2.8, internal zoom, collapsible, 12+ blades.

Edited August 31, 2023 by mirekti

[Jeff S]

52 minutes ago, mirekti said:

If I had to choose it would be a 50-90mm TATE
A constant f/2.8, internal zoom, collapsible, 12+ blades.

That would be a TABE, not a TATE.

Jeff

[lct]

At constant f/2.8, a 50-90 could be a LABE for Long Angle Bi-Elmarit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tessar.]

I'd go for a 28/35mm f/3.8, if it was the size of a 50mm Summicron or similar.  Very niche though.

 

[raizans]

I got a new idea: 28-35-40mm f/2.

For 50mm, I’d prefer a separate f/1.4 lens.

Edited August 31, 2023 by raizans