View Full Version : New M lenses offered with the M8?
I have heard rumors of additional wide angle lenses as well as another tri-style lens... anyone know any particular focal lengths?
WA is to be expected, if there's a crop factor. 21mm becomes 28mm with the 1.33x, so I expect a few lenses wider than that. Leica has built up some experience with small focal length lenses in their cooperation with Panasonic, so I'm curious what they'll come up with.
Peter.
This would be very interesting news that I for one will keep looking for more information as well. I do wonder though if the new lenses will be digital sensor only or full frame. I know I'll not be able to afford the digital M for quite some time if at all but some fast wide Leica glass would be good, but can't afford that either. Funds are low at the moment so the wait for new will not be too bad for me.
A wide tri style lens full frame would be very atttactive depending on the size.
There will be a 17mm I believe, that after crop factor will be 21mm.
15mm Voitlander=20mm on M8, use 21mm accessory finder. 12mm Voitlander=16mm on M8, use 15mm accessory finder. I already have both lenses and finders. If I actually manage to swing an M8 it'll be a looooooooong time before I can afford another Leica lens, let alone a brand new one.
15mm Voitlander=20mm on M8, use 21mm accessory finder. 12mm Voitlander=16mm on M8, use 15mm accessory finder. I already have both lenses and finders. If I actually manage to swing an M8 it'll be a looooooooong time before I can afford another Leica lens, let alone a brand new one.
The little 12 can make some lovely shots.
Thanks for the finder comment, I did not even think about that. I will just pop the 15 finder on the Rd1.
IIRC the RD1 has a 1.5x crop which would make the 12 an 18, so I'm not sure how well the 15 finder would work out. You might need to set the camera on a tripod and take some shots and compare the finder view with the review on the LCD and perhaps mask off the finder with some electrician's tape.
HenningW
06-08-2006, 13:38
IIRC the RD1 has a 1.5x crop which would make the 12 an 18, so I'm not sure how well the 15 finder would work out. You might need to set the camera on a tripod and take some shots and compare the finder view with the review on the LCD and perhaps mask off the finder with some electrician's tape.
Try and find a 16mm finder for the Contax Hologon. I ordered one a number of years ago to use with my 15 Leica Hologon so I wouldn't risk smashing the original finder, and after paying about $200Cdn got the '16mm' finder and found it actually showed about the equivalent of 18 or 19mm full frame, so should be just fine for the 12mm VC.
Henning
Mark Norton
06-08-2006, 19:51
I think people who are moaning about the cost of the M8 will need to be sitting down when there hear of the cost of the new wide angles. The 21mm Elmarit is beaten only by the 50mm Noctilux and the 75mm Summilux and a 17mm Elmarit is going to be more difficult and hence expensive to make than the 21mm lens, assuming it is full frame. The 21mm Elmarit is currently 3000 before the zebra price increase, so a 17mm f2.8 is going to be 3250+, and then there's the finder to buy as well.
You might be surprised, Mark. Leica stated some time ago that these that these lenses would be priced "attractively" and would be offered as a " package with the M8" whatever that may mean. I think they will picth them at the same level, or just below Zeiss.
Mark Norton
06-09-2006, 00:17
Well, there's attractive and attractive. They might introduce a line of lenses made by whoever is making the new lens for the Panasonic L1, maybe restricted to 1.33 like the Nikon DX lenses.
They currently offer the M7 and R9 with a heavily discounted Summicron 50mm and I can see them doing an M8 package with, say, a 35mm f2 or a 28mm f2.8, but the ultra-wide lens is going to be expensive, just look at the price of the Zeiss 15mm. Plus, Leica is trying to add value uniquely to its lenses with the zebra stripes and associated processing.
I think they will have to do a package with a not-too-expensive 21 asph 2.8 included. Designwise they can do it too. Now for the marketing department.
Mark Norton
06-09-2006, 04:51
Japp, why will they HAVE to do that? Because you want a 21mm Elmarit and don't want to pay for it? If I believe your other posts, the camera will be in short supply for months. Why would they need to offer an incentive to buy a product in short supply by under-cutting one of their most expensive lenses?
Looking at a recent price list, a 50mm Summicron is 1300 but only 500 when bought with an M7; something of a bargain. The 35mm Summicron ASPH is 1900, so they might offer it for 1000 with the M8.
Most of all I do not expect Leica to compromise the quality of their lenses by introducing a "budget" range.
They have to do that to attract non-Leica users. Of course there will be a drooling mob of Leicaphiles outside their gates in the first half-year or so, and they will have to tool up for a quite hefty production, in fact I would be surprised if the weren't producing a stockpile right now, but after that it will be quite difficult to tool down, so they must insure a steady flow of customers. The only way to do that is to offer a financially attractive package to new users, at a total price of, say, somewhere between a Canon 5d and 1Dii plus 17-40L. That would mean about 5500 to 6000 Euro, even if the lens is sold at break-even or maybe slightly less. The body will then generate future lenssales of 35 asph lenses, Noctiluxes etc. The reason they can do that is because they have been fine-tuning their lens design and production system over the last ten years, enabling them to cut down drastically on both R&D costs and production costs whilst actually making a quantum leap in quality. For instance, the 50 Summilux asph cost actually less then its predecessor when it was introduced.
As long as Leica adheres to their stated pledge that all future lenses will be fully usable on film (i.e. image circle sufficient for 24x36), I can't see where a wider-than-21mm f/2.8 lens could be anything but staggeringly expensive. Unless they outsource the production to Japan as they do with some of the zooms in the R system. Frankly having handled some of those zooms I'd be perfectly ok if Leica did that with all the M lenses. As it is the prices are now really into the realm of absurdity.
A 21/3.5 would be a quarter of the price.....or a 19/4.0.
Mark Norton
06-09-2006, 11:18
A 21/3.5 would be a quarter of the price.....or a 19/4.0.
Which would put them at less than Leica's least expensive lens, the 50mm Elmar. Seems unlikely don't you think unless they do something radical and make the lenses elsewhere and to a lower standard.
But Leica's first order of business has to be restoring the 21mm fov lost to the crop factor. That would mean a 15-16mm. And we don't know how the M8 will do with high-iso noise, so we can't predict whether an f/4 lens would go over well or not. Remember there's been constant moaning about the Tri-Elmar's f/4 limit since it first came out and Leica was pressed to develop a 28/2 and discontinued the 28/2.8. Somehow I don't see them developing any lens slower than it absolutely must be to not obscure the rangefinder window.
Mark Norton
06-09-2006, 11:38
I've only recently realiseed the 28mm Elmarit had gone, it was one of the last non-ASPH lenses so I expect we will see a new 28mm Elmarit ASPH. Was wondering if there might be a 28mm Summilux?
I agree that going wider than the 21mm is important but it's going to be costly. Can't see it being slower than f2.8. Personally, I think 15mm f2.8 would be good with a finder to handle 15, 18 and 21 (corrresponding to 20, 24 and 28mm), though I'm hoping the camera will handle 21mm (28mm fov) natively.
J. Borger
06-09-2006, 12:53
Look at the gallery: how many 21mm pictures are in there???
And if you find a couple try to find out how many of those really work?
So how important is restoring the 21mm really?
The best I have been able to divine has been a stand alone 17 mm f2.8 and a tri-elmar digital equivalent of a 21-28-35 at f/4.0. Supposedly these are the new lenses available with the M8 which will make up the difference between the normal M lenses and the 1.33 crop factor.
The 17mm will replace the 21 mm in the lineup... I hope all the other lenses fall into place with the M8.
Mark Norton
06-09-2006, 23:43
I'd be surprised if a new Tri-Elmar overlapped the existing one by two of the focal lengths, little incentive for people to buy both.
Yes, also a 17mm lens would be of little interest for film users.
I would vote for a 15mm lens instead.
Best,
LCT
I think the point was that a 17 with the digital crop factor is essentially a 21 on film, while a 21 on digital is approximately a 28. No overlap... notice my statement "the digital equivalent" of those focal lengths.
Mark Norton
06-10-2006, 07:47
So what are you saying the actual focal lengths of a new Tri-Elmar shoud be, keeping in mind the current one is 28-35-50?
Tony Rose
06-10-2006, 07:55
The news is out!
Go to:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06061001leicamdlenses.asp
TR
So what are you saying the actual focal lengths of a new Tri-Elmar shoud be, keeping in mind the current one is 28-35-50?
Yes. If the current 28/35/50 becomes a 35/44/63 on a digital M (given a 1.25 crop rate), then a digital 17/19/21 would become a 21/24/26 on a film M, and thus no overlap between tri-elmars. I am only using those three focal lengths as an example... if anyone knows the actual lengths expected, please let us know.
Mark Norton
06-10-2006, 09:45
The crop factor is 1.33, not 1.25, so that a 21 becomes a 28 and so on.
Seems to me we're likely to see a wide Elmarit to approximate to the existing 21 and 24 Elmarits (15 + 18 or 16-17) and a 28mm Elmarit ASPH to fill the gap left by the discontinued non-ASPH lens.
Tri-Elmars are complex, expensive and slow and a wide one would just exacerbate the problems of wides with the Digital M. A 21-24-28 would be nice but there's the whole issue of coupling it to the viewfinder frame lines. I doubt we'll see it.
I do think they also need an entry level 35mm lens, the digital equivalent of the 50mm Summicron, so maybe we'll see a 35mm Elmarit as the new starter lens. Maybe 3995 body only, 4995 for body + 35mm Elmarit. Keep in mind the 35mm Summicron is 1900.
How does that sound, apart from expensive?
...maybe we'll see a 35mm Elmarit as the new starter lens. Maybe 3995 body only, 4995 for body + 35mm Elmarit. Keep in mind the 35mm Summicron is 1900. How does that sound, apart from expensive?
1000$ for a slow (f/2.8) entry lens?
Most people would prefer a second hand Summicron i guess.
But a new 35/2 SSSBZC (Super-Sharp-Smooth-Bokeh-Zebra-Cron) ;) at $1,500 would be a nice move perhaps...
Best,
LCT
"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/0...icamdlenses.asp"
Why isn't the 75 f2.0 on this list?
"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/0...icamdlenses.asp"
Why isn't the 75 f2.0 on this list?
Not a good copy and paste job ... :p
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/objektive/18.pdf
"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/0...icamdlenses.asp"
Why isn't the 75 f2.0 on this list?
Hi Bill,
Your dear 75/2 is on the list my friend.
Best,
LCT
Bob Parsons
06-11-2006, 01:11
"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/0...icamdlenses.asp"
Why isn't the 75 f2.0 on this list?
The 11822 Noctilux isn't on that list either :( but it is in the Leica pdf document :)
Bob.
Mark Norton
06-11-2006, 01:28
The DP Review list is creating more confusion than light. If they can make mistakes on a simple cust and paste, does make you wonder how accurate the rest of their stuff is.
Thank you guys.
Hi LCT - you are absolutely correct - that is the best lens I have ever used, and I am really looking forward to trying it on the Leica 10.5 MP CCD. I am hoping to have the M8 in September, or early October, and I am trying to decide which lenses to send away to have converted. I am not sure whether to sent the 21 or not (I may get a 28 Summicron and wait to hear more about the wide lens they will release with the camera). I would also like to have a better idea of just how these contacts will enable (an algorithm?) to improve the image. I do not care about knowing which lens I used when I took a photo.
Bill
Bob Parsons
06-11-2006, 05:05
Thank you guys.
[snip]
I would also like to have a better idea of just how these contacts will enable (an algorithm?) to improve the image. I do not care about knowing which lens I used when I took a photo.
Bill
Have a look at all of Joseph S. Wisniewski's postings in this thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=18734770
Bob.
Well if the coding actually does make a palpable difference in RAW files in terms of counteracting the sensor vignetting based on specific lens design, I hope that either Leica makes that available through a menu or else that some enterprising soul finds a way to hack the firmware and open up the function to being manually accessed. Or at least publishes a set of "recipes" for Photoshop tweaks for various lenses. I bet someone does one or all of those.
The new lenses will be 17mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and a new Tri-Elmar.
The news is out!
Go to:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06061001leicamdlenses.asp
TR
Yeah- but they have the number of permutations wrong -it is 192. They forgot that the camera "sees" three groups of focal lengths.
The new lenses will be 17mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and a new Tri-Elmar.
Would you mind to tell where you've found out that scoop?
Best,
LCT
The new lenses will be 17mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and a new Tri-Elmar.
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
I disagree. Olympus made a simply stunning 21mm F2.0 for the OM not to long ago. I said F2.0. Again F2.0 and thats for a full frame camera. The lens is also compact, befitting the form factor of a rangefinder camera.
So if Olympus can design a 21mm F2.0 that doesn't vignette(much), why can't Leica do the same for a 17mm f2.8 crop factor lens? In fact they should be able to make a FF lens that meets those specifications.
The OM lens is available used for about $1000 . If someone had an an OM to M adapter, I would pick up that lens in a heartbeat. Well maybe in enough heartbeats to round up $1000 !!
Rex
It it probable that at least the 17 will not be very nice on a film body.Even if the coverage is sufficient , they will have to enlarge the central pupil by using dish shaped lenses front and rear, making it very hard to reduce distortion when used on a 35 mm film. And if they correct the vignetting all the way by this and similar tricks it will counter-vignette on film.
Leica has said that these new lenses will be optimized for film as well.
but couldn't afford it. I have an 18mm Sigma for my SLR and it's a necessary lens size for landscape photography where you sometimes can't back up, or where the barrel distortion effect is desired.
The best I have been able to divine has been a stand alone 17 mm f2.8 and a tri-elmar digital equivalent of a 21-28-35 at f/4.0. Supposedly these are the new lenses available with the M8 which will make up the difference between the normal M lenses and the 1.33 crop factor.
The 17mm will replace the 21 mm in the lineup... I hope all the other lenses fall into place with the M8.
willemvelthoven
06-14-2006, 11:03
I heard some rumors:
tri elmar wide 4.0 15mm 21mm 24mm (i'd prefer 15-21-28)
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
---
and
----
an afforadabe VERY COMPACT 3,5 / 28. cost: under 1.000 euro. now the last one would make sense. at that slowness, they can make a brilliant lens very compact (co collapsing needed) it would be a nice short standard lens. it would keep the kit price nice and low. it would not spoil the market for anything expensive and fast (like heavy discounting the 35 cron would)
also, the hermes and mont blanc toting new clientele would easily make dicent pix with this slower lens;-)
so this one i believe immediately. and i'm disappointed by it.
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
-.
There is no space under or on top of the flat of the Trielmar's flange for some elaborate dot-switching mechanism. If we hypothesize that the firmware contains a "library" of lens parameters that make some kind of difference in the way each image is processed depending on the lens design, then upon reading the Trielmar's code it would have to "consult" the frameline cam position to determe which of the 3 focal lengths is currently in use. Until this is confirmed I remain highly doubtful Leica would go to that length just for one lens, and am more convinced that all the codes will do is tell the camera what lens to specify in the EXIF data.
Mark Norton
06-14-2006, 15:08
I agree there needs to be a less expensive "starter" lens equivalent to the 50mm Summicron to be offered as a kit lens; 35mm would be the obvious choice but maybe it could be 28mm. With the old 28mm Elmarit discontinued, there's a hole to fill.
I'm enthusiastic about the current Tri-Elmar and it would be good if a new lens could provide more than one focal length. Need not be 3 of course, though Duo-Elmar is odd sounding.
The problem with any new lenses shorter than 28mm is how the viewfinder is going to handle the frames. Currently, there's a dedicated finder for 21 and 24 (and 28) whoch will not of course give the correct framing with the new camera. It all depends on what frames are offered together with finder magnification. The current 21mm activates the same frame line as the 28mm (and the 90mm) where actually there's a spare "slot" with the 35mm frame if the 135mm is dropped.
I agree with Ben Z that the Tri-Elmar will not switch the pattern and will instead work as he suggests. That works with the existing Tri-Elmar because the 28, 35 and 50mm focal lengths all use different viewfinder frame lever settings.
I heard some rumors:
tri elmar wide 4.0 15mm 21mm 24mm (i'd prefer 15-21-28)
(i wonder wether the tri lens would have 3 mechanically switching 6bit patterns?)
---
and
----
an afforadabe VERY COMPACT 3,5 / 28. cost: under 1.000 euro. now the last one would make sense. at that slowness, they can make a brilliant lens very compact (co collapsing needed) it would be a nice short standard lens. it would keep the kit price nice and low. it would not spoil the market for anything expensive and fast (like heavy discounting the 35 cron would).
willemvelthoven
06-14-2006, 23:17
actually the 3,5/28 elmar rumor was from a rather reliable source...
(i did not make it up)
I disagree. Olympus made a simply stunning 21mm F2.0 for the OM not to long ago. I said F2.0. Again F2.0 and thats for a full frame camera. The lens is also compact, befitting the form factor of a rangefinder camera.
Rex
Correct: for film and SLR. That is a totally different cup of tea. The main problem with designing a wideangle lens for a RF sensor camera is that the acceptance angle of the microlenses of the sensor is limited as opposed to film. Oblique rays, of which a wideangle lens has plenty towards the corners and the edges will not be registered fully causing vignetting. A RF camera hat a shorter film/sensor -lens distance than a SLR, making the angle even more acute.So you see the lens design for a RF/sensor wideangle is something that only the most advanced design techniques can master. And to optimize it for film as well, where the requirements towards the edges are totally different is something only a firm like Leica may be able to do, as this will require the edge rays of the lens to be more perpendicular to the film/ sensor instead of creating a kind of reverse vignetting by relatively enlarging the central pupil of the lens compared to the edges which is the current trick with specific "digital"lenses.
Edit: Oh-I forgot to mention: a 17 mm is about ten times as difficult to design as a 21, and designing within the physical limitations of the RF an VF windows complicates thing even far more......
Yes, also a 17mm lens would be of little interest for film users.
I would vote for a 15mm lens instead
Looks like i could be right.
See:
http://www.leica-camera.com/cgi-bin/discus_e/show.pl?2/220548
Best,
LCT
I need a f/2 lens for my M8.
I would like to buy a 28mm f/2 (equiv. 35mm f/2), but the price is too high (2700 euros).
Therefore, I will go for a 35mm f/2 (equiv. 50mm f/2). I hope Leica will offer a rebate to the price of that lens if it is purchased with the M8.
A different possibility would be a new Summicron 50mm. The actual design is a bit too old. Is the only classic not based on aespherical lenses. The price of a new Summicron could be lower than the price of the actual 35mm f/2 APSH, but the FOV would be strange (66mm equivalent). It could be interesting if the price is adequate.
Leica need a kit lens for the M8 at a reasonable cost and with a maximum aperture of f/2 or, alternatively, some kind of coupon-rebate program aplicable to any lens.
if true, I will get my pre-order in now!!!!!
Mark Norton
06-15-2006, 11:10
Before we get too excited, Bill on the Leica forum has pointed out this might be the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8, and not a Leica lens. The promo simply says "Leica M mount", not "Leica lens". It's a huge lens, and hugely expensive, 3000+.
J. Borger
06-15-2006, 12:00
I need a f/2 lens for my M8.
A different possibility would be a new Summicron 50mm. The actual design is a bit too old. Is the only classic not based on aespherical lenses. .
There is very little, if any, room for improving the 50 summicron.
What would ASPH add in your opinion ... ? More sharpness & contrast?
I would not call that an improvement!
Just curious what you want improved with a 50 Summicron!
As far as i remember standard lenses have always been 50mm or 40mm (CL) lenses at Leica.
Then i'd expect a 35mm lens for the digital M due to the crop factor.
An affordable remake of the pre-asph 35/2 4th version would be great but the sales of the asph would suffer i guess...
Best,
LCT
Iwonder what is going to happen with the 24 asph??
Mark Norton
06-15-2006, 14:46
Yes, the 24 has never been on my radar and as soon as you go shorter than 28, you hit the issue of frame lines. This is the big unanswered question about the Digital M - what will the magnification be and what frame lines will be supported. If we accept the 135 frame is going to be dropped, that leaves a spare frame position which could be used by the 21mm (28 in "old money") but currently, the 21 brings up the 28/90 frame.
My lenses are going off to Solms tomorrow for zebra-dising, and it will be interesting if the new 21mm mount changes the viewfinder frame selection.
As for the 24, I have no idea!
There is very little, if any, room for improving the 50 summicron.
What would ASPH add in your opinion ... ? More sharpness & contrast?
I would not call that an improvement!
Just curious what you want improved with a 50 Summicron!
Well, Peter Karbe, the actual chief of the optics department at Leica, made a study on how to improve the Summicron 50mm. He designed a Summicron ASPH which had stunning performance. However, Leica considered that design not adequate for production. I don't know why, but I suppose the new version would be more expensive, and the actual Summicron already was exceptional.
The research made by Karbe was employed as a basis for many other APSH revisions of classic desings. That basic new design was so powerful that it allowed a great improvement in performance in Summiluxes or wide-angle lenses.
Due to these reasons, I think Leica could redesign the classic Summicron actually, many years after the study of Karbe. The goal would be a better performance, or a similar performance at a lower cost.
Correct: for film and SLR. That is a totally different cup of tea.
Edit: Oh-I forgot to mention: a 17 mm is about ten times as difficult to design as a 21, and designing within the physical limitations of the RF an VF windows complicates thing even far more......
You too are correct. But my point was a RETROFOCUSING lens has beem designed that is compact. I am not married to non-retrofocusing designs in rangefinders. they are generally more compact and thats why I like them. In this case a SLR design lens meets the compactness requirement of a rangefinder. So why not use it? It avoids all the problems you mentioned above inherent in a a non-retrofocus design.
Maybe using the same approach a 17mm F2.8 could be developed. I don't know how Qlympus did it but their retrofocus design worked AND it was compact.
Somebody please 'splain it" to me
Rex
I am not interested in a superwide lens for the M8.
My basic set will be a standard-like lens (28mm or 35mm) and a short tele (50mm, 75mm or 90mm).
I would like to buy the 90mm f/2, buy I am not sure. This lens can be difficult to focus and frame (120mm equiv.). The 75mm f/2 is an interesting alternative (100mm equiv.). The 50mm lenses provide a moderate tele FOV, but I can be too short for a tele and too narrow for a standard lens.
Whether the basic kit is based on two lenses, the ideal solution would be some distance between them. For instance, 28mm and 75mm (equiv. 35 and 100mm FOVs), or a less expesive solution based on 35mm and 75mm (equiv. 50mm and 100mm). The less expensive starting kit, based on a single lens, would be a simple 35mm (equiv. 50mm) or a 50mm (equiv. 66mm). The 35mm or 50mm lens is just in the middle, but there would be a hole at the wide side and a hole at the tele side.
I think the correct strategy is to wait for more information about framelines, magnification of the finder, etc.
My key question is... 35mm or 50mm (equiv. 50mm-66mm)?
Mark Norton
06-16-2006, 09:00
My thoughts on focal lengths are:
1 lens: 35
2 lenses: 28, 50 or Tri-Elmar
3 lenses: 21, 35, 75
4 lenses: 21, 35, 50, 75
5 lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 75
I don't see much point going beyond 75 though I will be keeping my 90 Elmarit; wouldn't buy it if I didn't have one though.
...I don't see much point going beyond 75 though I will be keeping my 90 Elmarit; wouldn't buy it if I didn't have one though.
Depends on the VF magnification i guess.
A 90mm lens would be great with a 1:1 VF a la R-D1.
I'll have to wait the R-D2 or the digital ZI to get such a VF on a new digital rangefinder i'm afraid... :(
Best,
LCT
The 90mm F4 collapsible Elmar is great on the R-D1. Sounds kinda long, but is very stelalthy for outdoor street shooting. When collapsed, its no bigger than a 50mm . Would be even more practical on the M8.
Rex
Believe me, if I spring $5 thou for this puppy with it's "crop factor" I'm going to use it to advantage. One of my all-time favorite focals with 35mm is 180-200mm, and the 135mm is (er, will be) a 180 on the M8. I've got one of those generic zoom accessory finders that goes up to 180 or 200, and the 1.25x magnifyer to increase focusing. Since Leica's said the Visoflex will be compatible (and I've got a III), I just snagged myself a black OTZFO/16464 universal short focusing mount which will accept the lens head from my 135 Tele-Elmar. I intend meantime to try that combo (135 head + short mount + 14167 M-R adaptor + R-EOS adaptor) on my 20D. The 135 T-E is a gorgeous lens.
I prefer reflex cameras for extreme condition (superwides, superteles...). I accept that rangefinders are a limited instrument, no as versatile as reflex cameras, but with several strong (competitive) points.
I prefer SLR's for extreme conditions too. In fact I would have never considered using a lens longer than 135mm on a rangefinder. But the way Ben Z describes it, I'm starting to get that feeling of an eminent GAS attack. You know the feeling ( well I know I already have 7- 50mm lenses but I have a gap between my f2.8s and my F3.5s).
Mmmmm......I never owned a Visoflex before.........there's a mint one Ebay for........MMMmm...coupled with that cool russian 200mm number.......mmmm....what about macro......
STOP ME>>>PLEASE>>>>HEEEeelp!...
Rex
Mark Norton
06-16-2006, 22:46
I agree that rangefinders have a comfort zone and don't work as well outside it. Never understood the point of trying use one for macro, for example. for my M6, 28 - 90 was where I was comfortable, for the M8, it's more like 21-75 and I'll keep the 90 because I have it.
It all depends though on viewfinder magnification and frame lines...
rangefinders have a comfort zone and don't work as well outside it. Never understood the point of trying use one for macro, for example
Mark
Just for the fun of it.
Rex
My thoughts on focal lengths are:
If the price is not a problem :rolleyes: :
1 lens: 28 f/2
2 lenses: 28 f/2, 75 f/2
3 lenses: 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
4 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 75 f/2
5 lenses: 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1, 75 f/2
If there are budget constraints :bang: :
1 lens: 35 f/2
2 lenses: 35 f/2, 75 f/2
Mark Norton
06-17-2006, 01:26
Mark
Just for the fun of it.
Rex
Well I agree that's a good reason!
Hi Ruben,
Looks like we're discussing on 2 different forums right now. ;)
One of the digital M's issues, as compared to the R-D1, is the gap between 50mm and 75mm.
50mm lenses are perfect as short teles on the R-D1 but they will be too short on the DM i'm afraid.
Best,
LCT
My favorite lens on my current Ms is the 50 mm focal length.
Therefore on the digital M:
1 lens : 35 mm
2 lenses : 35 mm & 75 mm
3 lenses : 35mm, 50mm, & 75 mm
Oh yea, I already own these lenses and think I can adjust (even enjoy) the extra from the crop factor.
Ray
Would't you need a 28mm lens for a 35mm equiv. FOV?
The 90mm F4 collapsible Elmar is great on the R-D1...
Agreed.
Even at f/4, this lens is sharper than both my Tele-Elmarit and Elmarit # 11129 on the R-D1.
Best,
LCT
Would't you need a 28mm lens for a 35mm equiv. FOV?
Nemo,
Yes, I would. However, I think the 1.33x for my lenses will work just fine as my primary lens is a 50 currently. My 35 will now be very close to my standard of 50. My 50 will really become a short-telephoto basically taking over the 75 spot. The 75 Cron will now give me more reach as a 100, which I never had before.
Best,
Ray
Whithin the 28mm-90mm FOV margins the rangefinders are incredible cameras.
There is a point that is of great importance, but it has not been mentioned.
You know the angle of incidence of the light rays is problematic in rangefinder cameras, but there are good news as well. The light transmission depends on the distance beetween the exit pupil and the focal plane. Therefore, the light transmission will be much better in a rangefinder camera!
Kodak sensors are superb at low ISOs. This combination of Kodak sensor and rangefinder design is able to surpass the image quality of the DMR, even if the M8 is a very, very small camera.
See this comparison of image quality of the DMR and the Canon 5D:
http://www.muray-assts.com/leica/proves_optiques.htm
And this comparison between the Kodak 14n and the DMR:
http://www.alexandertufte.com/KodakVSLeica/
My fear was that Leica would present the M8 with a stratospheric price (6000 euros or something like that), but they are emiting positive signals. It seems they have landed in the Earth planet. A price of 3900 euros is adequate and Leica will have a huge success.
leicavidom
06-21-2006, 14:07
If Leica is to keep several generations of Leica M users happy,how will they play
the optical v/f system on the M digital?
Not too many options I think; It will have to be an updated version of a 0.72.
My first guess at it will be the following.
For the 35/135 combi. we will see 31/117 based on using 24/90lenses
For the 28/90 combi. we will get 27ish/97ish based on using 21/75 lenses
For the 50/75 combi. we will get 45 / 65 based on using 35 + 50mm lenses
Any other new lenses that would work with the v/f system would have
be based on those conversion rates.
Or do they have a clever little optical gizmo based on the design of the
1.25x conv.which will allow for a combined use of old and new lenses? :bang:
Bob Ross
06-21-2006, 19:04
If Leica is to keep several generations of Leica M users happy,how will they play
the optical v/f system on the M digital?
Not too many options I think; It will have to be an updated version of a 0.72.
My first guess at it will be the following.
For the 35/135 combi. we will see 31/117 based on using 24/90lenses
For the 28/90 combi. we will get 27ish/97ish based on using 21/75 lenses
For the 50/75 combi. we will get 45 / 65 based on using 35 + 50mm lenses
Any other new lenses that would work with the v/f system would have
be based on those conversion rates.
Or do they have a clever little optical gizmo based on the design of the
1.25x conv.which will allow for a combined use of old and new lenses? :bang:
The viewfinder famelines is a mystery at the moment, but Leica has said that the FOV factor will be 1.33X and that the 135mm will be dropped. In one of LCT's posts he indicated that to support the 90/2 a finder magnification of 0.78X would be needed. The lens mount cams that bring up the framelines will supposedly stay the same, so the pairs will do so, too. The 21mm (28mm eqv) may be the entire viewfinder field of the 28/90 set that it brings up. This is the way the M5 is. Another unknown is whether Leica will increase the size of the viewfinder. Using the 0.72X finder for guessing as you did is probably the best.
Another unknown is whether Leica will increase the size of the viewfinder. Using the 0.72X finder for guessing as you did is probably the best.
The physical size of the RF will be the same for sure, as goggled lenses will work.
For the 35/135 combi. we will see 31/117 based on using 24/90lenses
For the 28/90 combi. we will get 27ish/97ish based on using 21/75 lenses
For the 50/75 combi. we will get 45 / 65 based on using 35 + 50mm lenses
This is impossible; to be able to use older lenses, they cannot change the combinations of focal lenghts as they are irrevocably related to the existing linkage between lens and body.
So it will still be, for instance, still 50 and 75 together, with a FOV of 65/100, etc.
The only thing they can do realistically is add a fixed marking, be it a frameline or the edge, for either the 24 or 21. (FOV 28/35) Would they add both the viewfinder would probably become too cluttered up, but then they will be dropping the 135 and may well add another frameline to that group.
{for clarity's sake I used approximations of the field of view at 1.33 sensor crop. Obviously the actual focal lenghts of the lenses will remain the same}
Mark Norton
06-21-2006, 23:30
The capabilities of the viewfinder are a big unknown. The issue is that to accomodate people who wear eye-glasses and the range of available focal lengths, Leica has over time introduced 3 "fixes" to the basic design - different magnifications set in stone when the camera is made, a screw-in viewfinder magnifier and auxiliary finders on the hot shoe.
All of these are unsatisfactory from a cost and usability point of view. In the ideal world, there would be one viewfinder which would handle 15mm - 90mm (accepting that 135 is out), provide an exit pupil which suits eyeglass wearers and provides a variable magnification finder to suit the lens mounted, avoiding the need to choose viewfinder type at purchase and buy these slightly archaic accessories.
If they've gone for minimum change, there will simply be frames for 28/90, 35, 50/75 only and the viewfinder magnification will be 0.72 * 1.33 = 0.96, a bit like the R-D1 with more frame lines. In this "solution", you'd still need to use an aux finder for wider lenses.
If they've been brave, they could have gone for one or more of the following:
- a dual range viewfinder magnification to avoid the need to specify at purchase and use the viewfinder magnifier
- support down to the 21mm (28mm equivalent fov), with frame ambiguity resolved by using the zebra coding
- use of an LCD screen to project framelines and other viewfinder information (shutter speed/flash) into the viewfinder.
Can't see the 15mm being supported without an aux finder but if the 21/24 are not supported natively, a new aux finder will be required for the narrower angle of view.
The viewfinder is a key product differentiator for the M8 and Leica had the opportunity to introduce something really innovative instead of sticking doggedly to tweaking what has gone before. If ever the time was right to re-invent the M rangefinder concept, it was now.
I use the past tense because this has long been decided and my fear is that, like a rabbit caught in headlights, they've been scared of being sufficiently radical. Time will tell.
The capabilities of the viewfinder are a big unknown. The issue is that to accomodate people who wear eye-glasses and the range of available focal lengths, Leica has over time introduced 3 "fixes" to the basic design - different magnifications set in stone when the camera is made, a screw-in viewfinder magnifier and auxiliary finders on the hot shoe.
All of these are unsatisfactory from a cost and usability point of view. In the ideal world, there would be one viewfinder which would handle 15mm - 90mm (accepting that 135 is out), provide an exit pupil which suits eyeglass wearers and provides a variable magnification finder to suit the lens mounted, avoiding the need to choose viewfinder type at purchase and buy these slightly archaic accessories.
If they've gone for minimum change, there will simply be frames for 28/90, 35, 50/75 only and the viewfinder magnification will be 0.72 * 1.33 = 0.96, a bit like the R-D1 with more frame lines. In this "solution", you'd still need to use an aux finder for wider lenses.
If they've been brave, they could have gone for one or more of the following:
- a dual range viewfinder magnification to avoid the need to specify at purchase and use the viewfinder magnifier
- support down to the 21mm (28mm equivalent fov), with frame ambiguity resolved by using the zebra coding
- use of an LCD screen to project framelines and other viewfinder information (shutter speed/flash) into the viewfinder.
Can't see the 15mm being supported without an aux finder but if the 21/24 are not supported natively, a new aux finder will be required for the narrower angle of view.
The viewfinder is a key product differentiator for the M8 and Leica had the opportunity to introduce something really innovative instead of sticking doggedly to tweaking what has gone before. If ever the time was right to re-invent the M rangefinder concept, it was now.
I use the past tense because this has long been decided and my fear is that, like a rabbit caught in headlights, they've been scared of being sufficiently radical. Time will tell.
I edited across your post, sorry Mark.
I don't think they will use the zebra coding for the viewfinder, as they announced the camera will work without. And they need the focal-length length information supplementary to the coding to get sufficient combo's to cover all possible lenses.
Mark Norton
06-22-2006, 00:11
Just supose they do provide a frame for the 21mm lens which after all is no wider than the current 28mm frame. At the moment, they cannot tell whether the lens mounted is a 21, 28 or 90 because they all bring up the same framelines, maybe the 24 does the same, you can tell us soon!
In a world of electronically created frame lines, they could use the lens coding to display just the frame line required because it identifies the focal length. If there's no coding, they would just display the frame line pairs according to the bayonet lug.
By the way, I think the 63 combinations (+ 1 for "none") of the coding is more than enough without having to rely on combinations with the bayonet lug, apart from the Tri-Elmar where they will use a code to identify the lens and the bayonet lug to identify the focal length selected.
Yours is a very elegant solution, Mark, but is seems to contradict the claim that all lenses will work correctly without coding, except if they indeed incorporate the extra sensing of the lug with non-coded lenses, as you say. I feel that would really overstress the inventiveness in Solms, however.. ;)
Mark Norton
06-22-2006, 00:39
Jaap, if there was no coding - which the sensor will read as six "white" dots because the existing lens mount ring will reflect the light - the camera would then just display the frame lines in pairs according to the setting of the bayonet lug, it would be 100% compatible with uncoded lenses.
I think I'm probably dreaming though!
They will probably think this solution "too Japanese"in Solms! :D
Bob Ross
06-22-2006, 07:34
The physical size of the RF will be the same for sure, as goggled lenses will work.
What I meant by larger viewfinder was the actual "window" rather than the rangefinder base. It might be possible to have a larger window and still use the goggled lenses. It would just mask the virewfinder window, which wouldn't hurt for the tele & macro adapter.
Mark Norton
06-22-2006, 09:46
I wonder what percentage of users have one of these goggled lenses or, more up to date, the macro adapter. If it's 1%, I'd be surprised and this slavish adherence to supporting old stuff like the Visoflex could have compromised the camera.
Yes, the 24 has never been on my radar and as soon as you go shorter than 28, you hit the issue of frame lines. This is the big unanswered question about the Digital M - what will the magnification be and what frame lines will be supported. If we accept the 135 frame is going to be dropped, that leaves a spare frame position which could be used by the 21mm (28 in "old money") but currently, the 21 brings up the 28/90 frame.
My lenses are going off to Solms tomorrow for zebra-dising, and it will be interesting if the new 21mm mount changes the viewfinder frame selection.
As for the 24, I have no idea!
I just got my new-used 24 in :) :) :) It brings up the 35/135 framelines. If they do drop the 135 frame, that will give scope for 24 framelines.:)
heluchien
05-10-2007, 06:30
Give a shot for Hologon 16mm. It's crazy idea but it's most interesting lens for sure. Check out this fancy lens:
http://yuweimichael.zenfolio.com/p91817270/?photo=h135F97B1#325031857
It is a Carl Zeiss lense for Contax. A very radical design. How does it fit a M8? Adaptor? And the pictures taken with a M8 with this.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.