View Full Version : Picture Of The Tri-elmar 16/18/21
Just received a picture from the new TRI-ELMAR. The source is known to me as insider.
Didier
http://mogool.com/transfer/TRI-ELMAR-16-18-21.JPG
terrafirmanada
08-27-2006, 12:48
Looks like alot of fun for all M cameras.
Nachkebia
08-27-2006, 12:52
Lovely :) I like it :)
This new Tri-Elmar looks slightly fatter than the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar.
But the more sensational thing seems to be this new finder. Looks like the framelines are switchable. The wheel at the top front seems to have indexes for 28-24-21-18-16 (that's all variations of the new tri-elmar for fullframe and cropped). Can't really read the indexes of the wheel behind it. Are these focal lengths or distance marks? The index closest to the back seems to be an infinity sign, but I'm not shure. I expect the parallax is likely adjusted with the weel at the bottom, close to the hotshoe mount? Does the top wheel behind eventually offer even more framelines for other focal lengths?
Didier
But the more sensational thing seems to be this new finder.
Didier
I ain't putting that thing on my camera. JezzLouise, its HUGE! Sort of defeats the whole reason for a rangefinder. I think I'll just use the CV 15mm finder and guess for the 18mm & 21mm. Close enough.
Rex
Nachkebia
08-27-2006, 13:13
rvaubel : You wont, rich canonites will, to pose in the hood :D
It probably has different framelines for digital and film, allowing you to use one finder. But I agree, it looks rather large, but at least the profile is flat rather than sticking way up like the Varifocal finder. It looks like it has an integrated bubble level as well, and the little grill is probably to light the framelines like on the rangefinder, so chances are it will have very bright, clear framelines like in the camera's viewfinder. Overall it looks like a good idea. If it has high performance, it seems like a better idea than lugging around 3-5 separate viewfinders. That said, I will be surprised if it is under 500 dollars. It looks like it is smaller or about the same size as the old hotshoe coupled meters, which aren't THAT huge in practice...
The lens looks great to me. f/2.8 is nice to have, but sacrificing one stop to gain two more focal lengths is something I could easily live with. 16 and 18mm are going to be WIDE on film...very cool. Hopefully they managed to control distortion and vignetting to a reasonable extent.
I suspect how many would routinely shoot with an ultra wide at f2.8 ... f/4 is more than sufficient. The M8 firmware will "fix" all the distortion and vignetting for sure.
The lens looks great to me. f/2.8 is nice to have, but sacrificing one stop to gain two more focal lengths is something I could easily live with. 16 and 18mm are going to be WIDE on film...very cool. Hopefully they managed to control distortion and vignetting to a reasonable extent.
I'de rather have a 18mm F2.8 myself. But beggers can't be chosers, but at $4000 its a little steep for my blood especially after blowing 5K on the M8.
I still can't wait....:o
Rex
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 13:30
The Leica publicity machine is leaking like a sieve now. That is one weird looking finder. Pity they didn't integrate it into the M8.
AndyPiper
08-27-2006, 15:12
Front dial is FoV, back dial is parallax correction, wheel on the foot is just the hot-shoe lock (like most flashes and the current 21-24-28 zoom finder)
Bubble on top rear is a level - or it communicates via infrared with the blue dot on the front of the M8 (wink!)
I won't critique the size until I try it on a body - espcially trying to pull the combo out of a camera bag fast. Likely the only way Leica could get BOTH a variable finder AND brightlines was to more or less replicate the cameras' internal finder (right down to the serrated illumination window) on a wide scale.
But I AM glad I already have 21 and 24 individual bright-line finders!
BTW I saw somewhere that the Tri-Elmar price INCLUDES THE FINDER - which may make it a more reasonable price.
Crop factor is simple - on a film M one uses the actual focal lengths (16-18-21) on the M8 one uses the upper end of the scale (21-24-28). No separate controls/dials needed.
Oh - AND: this is not only the first lens that LEICA has designed for M or R wider than 19mm (previous 15s were Zeiss or Schneider optics), it is also the first and only lens wider than 19mm made for the M with RF (rather than scale) focusing.
Zen-shooter
08-27-2006, 15:19
Nice going Didier for the pix.
The spirit level near the eyepiece is a nice touch...
I won't critique the size until I try it on a body - espcially trying to pull the combo out of a camera bag fast.......
!
You won't be pulling that combo out of a camera bag fast.
For me, fiddling with finders defeats the purpose of a rangefinder. I just leave the VC28-35 dual finder on my RD1 and I'm good to go from 21mm to 90mm (actual).
For the new tri-elmar I'd have to swap to a wider finder, but I'm sure that one finder could cover the 16 to 21mm range without a problem.
Rex
I will be quick to admit i'm a newbie when it comes to rf cameras but is this lens combo what people really hoped for? It seems somewhat limited to me.
AndyPiper
08-27-2006, 17:11
Gareth: Understand that this is not a "kit" lens, but a superwide sort-of-zoom at the extreme wide end. The M8 will also work with existing lenses going back 50 years that cover the longer focal lengths 21-24-28-35-50-75-90 (and likely 135, even though Leica doesn't think so). This lens just maintains wide-angle capability with the smaller-than-film sensor, restoring the 21 and 24 "views" that the sensor crops away.
Since the Leica system includes 50 f/1.0 and 75 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 lenses - it is by no means limited.
In terms of what I'd hoped for - wel I would have prefered a 16mm f/2.8 prime lens. But other folks might have wanted a 17 or 18mm prime lens. By providing a multi-focal lens, Leica is able to cover 3 fields of view with one optical design - important since they had a deadline to meet, and keep both the 21 and 24 users happy. It would not surprise me to see some faster single focal length wide lenses eventually become available - no only in the range covered by this lens, but a 28 f/1.4 perhaps.
Limited in what way? Zooms are not possible, but having a lens with 3 separate ultra-wide focal lengths in one compact lens with reasonable speed seems like quite a huge accomplishment to me. If this lens were from another manufacturer, I might not be as impressed, but whether you like their price structure or not, one thing Leica does is make every lens a great lens. There is not a bad lens in Leica's entire lineup and they would not release this if it did not perform very well. The accessory finder is simply a fact of life in using rangefinder cameras. Unless you made the camera finder huge and extremely low magnification, it would not be possible to use the lenses without an external finder. As external finders go, switching a knob to change focal length is easier than taking one finder off and putting another one on. Personally, I think this looks like a superb implimentation.
I didn't mean that the lens is limited as such but I suppose I had assumed (or hoped) that it would provide 35mm equivelants of 21, 28 and maybe something even wider rather than the 24.
AndyPiper
08-27-2006, 19:32
The finder does look a little like it was designed by Leica Geosystems, doesn't it? Should be used by a surveyor on top of a theodolite...
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 20:27
Evne though I am not a fan of finders, I like it, I like the way it mimics the old Leica Meter. I hope the body is made of metal, not plastic.
We don't have much of a reference but the depth of the finder is probably the same as the thickness of the camera body. The focal length selection is similar to the R-D1 and that is fine. One thing which would grate would be having to adjust for the crop factor before dialling in your focal length, it would be better to have a film/digital selector, or, better yet, have the finder detect what type of camera it is mounted on from the hot shoe. The distance scales looks like infinity, 20, 10, 7 , 5, maybe.
This lens, if you believed the leaked Italian price list information from Marco, was going to cost €2500; makes me think that price (and the €3800 for the body) were dealer prices and excluded VAT. Add 20% margin plus 16% German VAT to the lens and you get to €3480, call it €3500, $3800 + tax, £2400.
Terence T
08-27-2006, 20:32
Does anyone else find the focal lengths a little too close? I would think a slightly wider variation like a 14-20-28 would be better suited.
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 20:44
I agree the focal length range is relatively limited but that will have made it easier to design, still a huge technical challenge to maintain optical quality though. Key thing is that M8 users can go as wide as existing film users and if it really is a FF lens, Photokina is going to have something new for them as well.
21, 24 and 28 are the classic Leica wide angles, so it makes sense to me that they are doing it this way. I imagine if they tried to go even wider, it might have made the lens too large. But anyway, I have never really felt the need to go much wider than 21, so I probably will not get this lens unless I get the M8.
visiondr
08-27-2006, 21:27
It looks like the finder has a distance scale reading:
-- 0.5
-- 0.7
-- 1.0
-- 2.0
-- ∞
m
Ron
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 21:29
Yes, I think you're right...
I didn't mean that the lens is limited as such but I suppose I had assumed (or hoped) that it would provide 35mm equivelants of 21, 28 and maybe something even wider rather than the 24.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but the new Tri-Elmar provides exactly that: the equivalent field of view of 21, 24 & 28mm in 24x36 terms.
I recognize the difficulty of designing one for a zoom, but that DOF scale is almost undecipherable, and ugly to boot. Given the ultrawide coverage, I would be satisfied with hyperfocal marks for the three FLs.
It looks like the finder has a distance scale reading:
-- 0.5
-- 0.7
-- 1.0
-- 2.0
-- ∞
m
Agree. So the the bottom wheel is probably to lock the viewer in the hotshoe (you wouldn't let that piece drop off your camera, would you?...)
... and if it really is a FF lens.
As confirmed by several Leica sellers, it is FF for shure.
Didier
I'de rather have a 18mm F2.8 myself....Rex
Rex
Though it was me who posted that picture, personally I would not want to have such a Tri-Elmar. Too big, too expensive, and the focal lengths are too close together. A single 18 would do it for me, too. But a 18mm/f2.8 might be too large for my taste and my purse (like the 15mm Zeiss Ikon).
Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest had announced a 18mm/f4.0 Cosina Voigtlander LTM lens in late 2004. He said he had seen a prototype of it in the factory in Japan, and it's as compact as the CV 21mm/f4.0 and rangefinder-coupled. The project has been delayed at Cosina because of the intensive collaboration on the Zeiss Ikon projects. But it is not dead.
THIS could be my "Single-ELMAR" 18mm.
Didier
Mark Norton
08-27-2006, 23:48
So, do we think this has a single optical magnification, by my reckoning something like 0.4 or do we think the optical magnification changes as you change the focal length, as on the current finder. To me, it looks fixed, unlikely that little focal length knob would zoom the finder.
I think it would also need 7 frames - in FF terms, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32, 37 - the first two would be used when mounted on a film camera, the last two when mounted on a digital camera.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but the new Tri-Elmar provides exactly that: the equivalent field of view of 21, 24 & 28mm in 24x36 terms.
Yes, what I meant was that I was hoping for 21 and 28 but not the in between 24. I was hoping that we would get a 15 or so instead of the 24.
Just a thought: I understand that the Tri-Elmar was originally built not as a zoom, but as a lens that can be adjusted to one of three distinct focal lengths, because of the need to match up with the framelines available in the M body.
Yet here we have a sophisticated separate viewfinder. I would have thought, by now, that it would be possible to have an infinitely-variable set of framelines projected electronically within the viewfinder, able to accommodate the adjustments within a zoom range. Too radical?
There would be a communication issue, with the finder needing to read the focal length from the zoom, but I'm sure that could be managed. How will the M8 read the focal length of this new lens for writing the exif data?
So, do we think this has a single optical magnification, by my reckoning something like 0.4 or do we think the optical magnification changes as you change the focal length, as on the current finder. To me, it looks fixed, unlikely that little focal length knob would zoom the finder.
I too belive it's a fixed optics and only the framelines change. A wiedeangle zoom finder would be difficult, if not impossible, to produce in that size and with Leica's claim of sharp- and brightness.
IMO it would be wishable that the focal length is indicated in the finder.
I think it would also need 7 frames - in FF terms, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32, 37 - the first two would be used when mounted on a film camera, the last two when mounted on a digital camera.
No. The fullframe focal lengths 16-18-21 multiplied with the M8's crop factor 1.33 makes 21-24-28. The 21 mark is usable for both 21 (fullframe) and 16 (cropped).
Didier
There would be a communication issue, with the finder needing to read the focal length from the zoom, but I'm sure that could be managed. How will the M8 read the focal length of this new lens for writing the exif data?
When the focal length is changed, the lens will probably change the 6-bit code (on M8) as well as the mechanical frameline switch on older M cameras (like the classic Tri-Elmar). Possibly one of the reasons why this lens is not that cheap, btw...
Didier
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 02:27
Didier, if I'm paying $500+ for this thing, I would not expect to have to set the finder knob to 21 when I've mounted my $4000 lens and selected 16mm. I'd expect to set it to the same setting as on the lens - 16 - and have this "Universal Finder" select the correct frame which would happen to the frame used for a 21mm lens on a film camera.
That's why I think it needs 7 frames:
Frame#..1....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7
Film:.....16...18...21...24...28
Digital:...............16...18...21...24...28
The finder needs to be able to find out, or be told, whether it's on a film or digital body. Perhaps we need a hot shoe "lug"...
The existing Tri-Elmar has a single coding to identify the lens and could use the bayonet lug to identify the focal length in use. I suppose the new Tri-Elmar would do the same.
AndyPiper
08-28-2006, 02:46
Mark: Frames for 24 and 28 lenses cropped on the M8 (32, 37mm equiv.) are already included in the camera itself, no? (Or so we hear and surmise).
Why make the accesory finder more complicated/large than it already is to duplicate them? This finder is for use with this lens - with 3 frames to match, in each of the two formats, minus 1 for the overlap at 21mm = 5 frames total.
Chris N. Electronic framelines would only 'exist' when the power is on - I'd want to be able to estimate framing without burning up battery power keeping the LCD lines running in between shots.
If photographers want zooms, they should buy a Nikon D80. Rangefinders are different, and trying to turn them into pseudo-SLRs is like trying to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
8^)
Me - I'm gonna see how well or badly my C/V 15mm does before I make up my mind about the Tri-Superwide-Elmar (ASPH - I assume, although the markings aren't visible). And also compare it to my fixed 21.
I have a suspicion that the very long length means it is a telecentric digital-friendly optical design, and may show significant improvement in the corners vis-a-vis darkening, fringing, and resolution - then again, it may not be enough to persuade me.
I'm sure there is a lever, as with the 28-35-50 TE, to signal the camera which focal length has been chosen. Moot as far as internal frames are concerned, but it will let the camera/software/EXIF know, in combination with a fixed Zebra-code, whether 16, 18, or 21 was in use.
Rico: But you would need hyperfocal marks for ever aperture at every focal length - plus an explanation in the instruction book for people used to full DOF scales. And HF marks are only useful if you are including infinity in your required DoF. Lots of people just want to be able to get everthing sharp from 1 meter to , say, 5 meters, without needing the whole range out to infinity (and a smaller f/stop and slower shutter speed).
Nachkebia
08-28-2006, 02:49
It is so dissapointing to have all this confusion with crop factor, just because technology is not mature enough and it is even more dissaponting that leica forces itself to put out not mature.
I'm surprised they didn't simply use goggles in the true Leica tradition.
AndyPiper
08-28-2006, 03:01
It is so dissapointing to have all this confusion with crop factor, just because technology is not mature enough and it is even more dissaponting that leica forces itself to put out not mature.
I sympathize - but frankly if Leica waited until the technology was mature enough to allow full frame with M lenses, it would be 5 years dead and buried.
An M8 now, with its crop factor, with its weird finder, with its new and expensive lens - is better than no Leica at all.
Nachkebia
08-28-2006, 03:11
AndyPiper : I meant not dissapointing of Leica, but dissapointing of market demand, what we ask for is what we get don`t forget, I mean look at jaapv :D :D :D :D
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 03:22
Andy, how about exchangeable eye-pieces to increase the magnification by 4/3 for digital?
That's why I think it needs 7 frames:
Frame#..1....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7
Film:.....16...18...21...24...28
Digital:...............16...18...21...24...28
Mark
I understand what you mean, but personally I don't find this less confusing than the solution Leica has chosen.
The finder needs to be able to find out, or be told, whether it's on a film or digital body. Perhaps we need a hot shoe "lug"...
It would be brillant if the finder gets the focal length information by the M8 body. Would be DSLR comfort...
The existing Tri-Elmar has a single coding to identify the lens and could use the bayonet lug to identify the focal length in use. I suppose the new Tri-Elmar would do the same.
Hopefully. This is pure speculation by me, but maybe the new Tri-E can communicate each focal length individually to the M8, with a changing 6-bit code or mechanically. This could then eventually allow to inform the finder about the FL, as mentioned before.
We'll definitely know more when one has had it in the hands...
Didier
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 05:13
Didier, how confusing can a finder be which has 5 focal length settings and displays the correct frame for each of those 5 according to the camera it's mounted on?
I was hoping that we would get a 15 or so instead of the 24.
That would be a 12mm or so lens, accounting for the crop factor. I don't think there's much of a market with that, and the Cosina 12/5.6 has been available for quite some time.
Philipp
This lens, if you believed the leaked Italian price list information from Marco, was going to cost €2500; makes me think that price (and the €3800 for the body) were dealer prices and excluded VAT. Add 20% margin plus 16% German VAT to the lens and you get to €3480, call it €3500, $3800 + tax, £2400.
Hi Mark,
I asked again my dealer because I too found the prices rather "low" considering Leica trend, but he assured me that they were official list prices to the customers, italian 20% VAT included.
Anyway he said he should know something more (specs ?) this week.
I will let you informed.
It's more than ten years I deal with him and he's usually well aware of what he says.
Of course he could be wrong, but if he doesn't exactly know, from official sources, he doesn't bother with "rumors".
Hope he's right btw, otherwise it would be even more difficult for me to afford this amazing stuff :(
____________________
P.S. I'm following this forum since last month, but I couldn't post or reply for permission reasons :confused:
I mailed Jorge but he didn't respond, so today I decided to subscribe with another username.
Hi all ! :)
Marco Squassabia
Anyway I too think the new Tri-Elmar price has someting wrong.
The Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 list price VAT included is 3.000 € here.
500 € less for a lens which is much more difficult to design is definitely odd, even if it's VAT excluded.
Maybe it's a "promo" :p price to enter the M8 experience...
Yes, what I meant was that I was hoping for 21 and 28 but not the in between 24. I was hoping that we would get a 15 or so instead of the 24.
Ah, my mistake...
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 08:53
Well Marco, if they do it on special for €2500, I'll be there! It's all confusing, not helped by the fact that prices are typcially quoted with tax in Europe and without tax in the US.
Bob Ross
08-28-2006, 09:17
Andy, how about exchangeable eye-pieces to increase the magnification by 4/3 for digital?
Mark, what we haven't seen yet is the rear of the finder;) Maybe there is a switch that says "film/digital" and the viewfinder has your idea built in:)
Bob
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 11:13
Bob, you're right, we have this term "naff" in English (don't know if it crosses the Atlantic) but it would be naff to have to select 28mm on the finder after selecting 21mm on the lens. Come to think of it, that's the very definition of "naffness"!
As you saw, the same effect could be had by having two different eyepieces, just like I used to use when looking at rat's bits through a microscope when I was a kid.
I'd like that switch to be labelled "The Past" and "The Future"....
Bob Ross
08-28-2006, 18:37
Bob, you're right, we have this term "naff" in English (don't know if it crosses the Atlantic) but it would be naff to have to select 28mm on the finder after selecting 21mm on the lens. Come to think of it, that's the very definition of "naffness"!
As you saw, the same effect could be had by having two different eyepieces, just like I used to use when looking at rat's bits through a microscope when I was a kid.
I'd like that switch to be labelled "The Past" and "The Future"....
Anti-Naff switch:cool:
de-Naffer switcher:rolleyes:
The new finder is sort of a 21st century Imarect finder for wide angles.
Bob
As for the lens, like any new Leica lens at today's prices I'm not even giving it a serious thought. If I spring big bucks it'll be for an M8, but for lenses I'll use my Voitlander 15mm to "replace" a 21 (with a 21 finder), and the 12mm to "replace" the 15 (with the 15's finder) and from there I've got Leica lenses to cover.
As for the new finder, the main attraction to me of M Leicas is their diminutive size and uncomplicated operation. Mounting an ungainly contraption the size of a Rollei 35 on top of it and then having to fiddle with not one but two dials with tiny numberings? Not for me.
I think I will just buy the Zeiss 15mm and stick with my 21.
The 16-28 finder is kind of a stopgap i guess.
Smells like if Leica were to launch a wide version or the M8 with 16/18/21+ frame lines.
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/sniffnose.gif
If I spring big bucks it'll be for an M8, but for lenses I'll use my Voitlander 15mm to "replace" a 21 (with a 21 finder), and the 12mm to "replace" the 15 (with the 15's finder) and from there I've got Leica lenses to cover.
As for the new finder, the main attraction to me of M Leicas is their diminutive size and uncomplicated operatio.
Yep, that's me too. Although that does leave me a little F stop challanged at the wide end. I would consider spending big bucks on a 17mm F2.8 or better yet F2.0.
The gap that needs to be filled is the 1.3x equivelent of the 21mm F2.8.
Actually Olympus made a perfectly wonderful 21mmF2.0 for there OM series SLR. If they could make a compact, retrofocus, fast superwide for a SLR, why can't Leica or Zeiss, or Cosina do the same?
Rex
Mark Norton
08-29-2006, 09:03
Any one of you photoshop gurus care to put the finder and the M8 together so that we can see what it might look like?
I think this lens and finder are a great idea. I dont really need superwides to be fast as you can hand hold them in lower light. The finder looks pretty inovative. It reminds me of days when Leica used to make some weird and interesting accessory to do just about anything and gave them all funny names. This finder is worthy of them and deserves a funny name of its own!
The new lens doesnt look that large really, I wonder what size filters it takes? (If any as the aperture indication mark is on the hood which suggests the hood doesnt come off to attach filters.)
Yep, that's me too. Although that does leave me a little F stop challanged at the wide end. I would consider spending big bucks on a 17mm F2.8 or better yet F2.0.
The gap that needs to be filled is the 1.3x equivelent of the 21mm F2.8.
Actually Olympus made a perfectly wonderful 21mmF2.0 for there OM series SLR. If they could make a compact, retrofocus, fast superwide for a SLR, why can't Leica or Zeiss, or Cosina do the same?
Rex
because the distance film-lens is much smaller on a RF. BTW I still say: why no goggles??
because the distance film-lens is much smaller on a RF. BTW I still say: why no goggles??
Much as I like the goggles concept, qui peut le plus peut le moins, so I don't understand why retrofocus is not possible on a RF!
Mark Norton
09-04-2006, 10:31
The new lens doesnt look that large really, I wonder what size filters it takes? (If any as the aperture indication mark is on the hood which suggests the hood doesnt come off to attach filters.)
A number of other lenses have the aperture mark replaced by one on the hood when the hood is fitted. It's possible of course that the front element protrudes so that the lens hood is permanently fitted to protect it, a bit like the Nikon 14mm f2.8 which is a monster. In that case, maybe filters are not possible...
because the distance film-lens is much smaller on a RF. BTW I still say: why no goggles??
Jaapv
But that makes it easier to design a compact, fast wide lens. Again, I ask, if Olympus could design a 21mm F2.0 for an SLR that met the requirements for compactness, even though it necessarily had to by of retrofocus design, why can't anyone design a similar lens in an M mount?
Rex
Much as I like the goggles concept, qui peut le plus peut le moins, so I don't understand why retrofocus is not possible on a RF!
Most modern RF wide-angles ARE retrofocus.
Jaapv
But that makes it easier to design a compact, fast wide lens. Again, I ask, if Olympus could design a 21mm F2.0 for an SLR that met the requirements for compactness, even though it necessarily had to by of retrofocus design, why can't anyone design a similar lens in an M mount?
Rex
I don't think so; the angle of incidence makes it all far more complicated, that, and the size restriction by the viewfinder. Did you ever see the distortion on that Olympus? Don't get me wrong, it was excellent in its day, though not cheap, but it can't hold up with current Zeiss and Leica lenses.
Most modern RF wide-angles ARE retrofocus.
I guessed as much about my 15/4.5...
but then, why is it that we can't get a retrofocus 21/2 nowadays ? (some shooting styles tolerate distortion - otherwise zooms wouldn't sell)
I don't think so; the angle of incidence makes it all far more complicated, that, and the size restriction by the viewfinder. Did you ever see the distortion on that Olympus? Don't get me wrong, it was excellent in its day, though not cheap, but it can't hold up with current Zeiss and Leica lenses.
jaapv
Unfortunately I never have had an opportunity to see the Olympus. I wish I had. In fact if anyone has one for sale, and if anyone knows whether or not an adapter is made for the M mount, I have $$ in my pocket.
As to your point about distortion, I don't doubt that their would be problems. As we all know, the symmetrical design possible with a rangefinder camera makes dostortion a lot easier to control. The retrofocus design has problems with distortion but the angle of incidence problem is relieved. Most modern rangefinder wides are a little of both. Thats why the new Leica and Zeiss designs are not as compact as the older ones, i.e. the rear elements are not hugging the focus plain like before.
As for me, I would take more distortion for a faster lens. That is for my street photography, people stuff, etc. For architecheal uses and other uses where distortion is a concern, I would pick a slower lens (and a tripod)
I quess I just can't get out of my head that a lens 21mm or shorter with a F2.0 or faster, is possible. If this isn't true then the argument about full frame comes back into play. And I thought I had put that puppy to bed.
Please say it isn't so:eek:
Rex
Yes they used to be able to do it!
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm
Most modern RF wide-angles ARE retrofocus.
Not most, but several, mainly the new Zeiss Ikon M lenses. Btw this might be a hint that Zeiss is planning a digital rangefinder.
The Cosina Voigtlander 15, 21, 25, 28 (3.5) and 35 (2.5) are not retrofocal. Don't know about the 12, 28/1.9, 35/1.2, 35 1.7.
Didier
Not most, but several, mainly the new Zeiss Ikon M lenses. Btw this might be a hint that Zeiss is planning a digital rangefinder.
The Cosina Voigtlander 15, 21, 25, 28 (3.5) and 35 (2.5) are not retrofocal. Don't know about the 12, 28/1.9, 35/1.2, 35 1.7.
Didier
Non retrofocus wide angle lens are truly wonderful, but unavoidable slow. Plus they have their rear element very close to the focal plane, necessitating high incident angles which lead to vignetting problems, especially with digital sensors.
The modern Zeiss and Leica designs are on the right path for a digital friendly design. But I still wonder no one picks up on Olympus's playbook, as they seemed to have most of the design problems licked.
Rex
Bob Ross
09-04-2006, 13:04
As to your point about distortion, I don't doubt that their would be problems. As we all know, the symmetrical design possible with a rangefinder camera makes dostortion a lot easier to control. The retrofocus design has problems with distortion but the angle of incidence problem is relieved. Most modern rangefinder wides are a little of both. Thats why the new Leica and Zeiss designs are not as compact as the older ones, i.e. the rear elements are not hugging the focus plain like before.
I quess I just can't get out of my head that a lens 21mm or shorter with a F2.0 or faster, is possible. If this isn't true then the argument about full frame comes back into play. And I thought I had put that puppy to bed.
Rex
A visual game to help with the sensor fall off idea: Take a half cup of coffee and sit close to the edge of a table where you can look down into it seeing the full circle surface of the coffee. Now push the cup away from you and watch the coffee and the shape of the cup rim. The coffee disappears and the rim distorts to an elipse. That is the symmetrical version, To get the retro focus version stand up and repeat. The coffee surface that you can see is the target that the photons have to hit. When the surface area that you can see reduces to one half, you have lost an f/stop and so forth.
Off set microlenses can help, but when they get radical to cope with wide angle lenses, they get reverse-radical for teles. I suppose that we could end up with a wide angle and a tele sensored M bodies, like we have the 0.58 and 0.85 viewfinders.
Producing fast wide angle lenses generally means the front element gets big. This isn't a problem with an aux viewfinder, but the retro focus design wont be small either.
We'll have to see how well Leica did with this knotty problem and what the focal length spread will be in real life shooting.
Bob
Yep, that's me too. Although that does leave me a little F stop challanged at the wide end. I would consider spending big bucks on a 17mm F2.8 or better yet F2.0.
The gap that needs to be filled is the 1.3x equivelent of the 21mm F2.8.
Why? Actually if you do need something with more or less equivalent angle of field, there already is a way in most cases even without the Tri-Elmar. In this case, for a 21mm-or-so equivalent lens, use the Zeiss 15/f2.8; for a 24mm-or-so equivalent lens use the Canon 19/f3.5; and for 25 to 28mm you can use any 21mm lens or if you want it a little shorter get a 20mm lens, such as the excellent CZJ MC Flektogon 20/f2.8 in M42 (not rangefinder coupled, but then it doesn't have to be at 20mm). With most of these you'll lose at most half a stop in speed. Shorter than 20mm-equivalent is where it gets tough, though.
Philipp
The main reason for retrofocus design in RF wideangle lenses is that it offers better control of aberrations. The symmetrical design had approached the theoretical limts of correction, one of the reasons the Elmarit 21 was not renewed for so many years. I am sure that Zeiss and Leica could design a 2.0 21 within the size-limits imposed by the body design of their rangefinders on paper, however I doubt that the tolerances of the mechanical part of the lenses, which is magnitidudes more critical in rangefinder lenses than in SLR lenses for various reasons,plus the shaping of the glass could be realised for an acceptable price, even by Leica/Zeiss standards.
Ironically, the design of a high-speed 21 on a 35 mm sensor could be far more difficult than a 16 or 18 of the same speed on a 1.33 sensor, due to edge and corner problems, that increase exponentially with both sensor size and lens speed. As a comparison: The Summarit was designed as a 1.5 because that was the limit of possibilities at the time, and 1.4 was totally impossible. Such a small difference!
On a more optimistic note: If we consider the advances in lens design and manufacture over the last, say, 15 years which are not far short of miraculous, especially with Leica, Zeiss and to a certain extent CV, it may well be that high-speed short lenses will appear in the not too far future. Certainly the advent of digital, smaller sensor rangefinders will speed up this development.
Not most, but several, mainly the new Zeiss Ikon M lenses. Btw this might be a hint that Zeiss is planning a digital rangefinder.
The Cosina Voigtlander 15, 21, 25, 28 (3.5) and 35 (2.5) are not retrofocal. Don't know about the 12, 28/1.9, 35/1.2, 35 1.7.
Didier
I don't know too much about CV, but I would imagine that the price restrictions they set themselves in the laudable quest for high quality for a reasonable price would limit them to less advanced designs. Most newly developed wide-angles by Leica and Zeiss have moved away from the time-honored double-gauss design.
I don't know too much about CV, but I would imagine that the price restrictions they set themselves in the laudable quest for high quality for a reasonable price would limit them to less advanced designs. Most newly developed wide-angles by Leica and Zeiss have moved away from the time-honored double-gauss design.
jaapv
Yes, its true that Cosina has opted to stay with the traditional rangefinder designs with regards the sub 28mm catagory. But from 28mm and up, they have shown a willingness to pull out all the design stops. Witness the 28mm f1.9, a truly great and affordable lens. As another example, I have the 40mm f1;4 Nokton, which simply amazes me with its small size, excellent quality and very reasonable cost . the other examples from the Cosina line alone is considerable.
I wish that Cosina would enlist there considerable design skills in persuing a fast, wide. There success in the longer focal lengths can certainly not be denied.
Rex
Mark Norton
09-04-2006, 13:58
It's certainly very striking to look at a 35mm Summilux and a 28mm Summicron and see the concave front lens elements.
Palaeoboy
09-05-2006, 08:18
It's certainly very striking to look at a 35mm Summilux and a 28mm Summicron and see the concave front lens elements.
The Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 and, I think the 35mm f1.7, also have concave front elements. So Voigtlander designs can also be modern and inovative.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.