We have the Tri-Elmars, why not M zooms in the future?

<p>Now that Ms have live view, thanks to the CMOS sensor, the idea of M zooms is a viable one. So I'm thinking, if Leica did make M zooms, what should the first one be? I suppose they could just use the 35-70/4 R and give it an M mount, while getting rid of the superfluous mechanisms like the automatic aperture. Perhaps a more useful design would be a 28-70mm. Maybe a 50-90/2.8 might work.</p>

<p>I wouldn't even mind if the zooms had one or two click stops at the more common focal lengths. E.g. on the 35-70, you'd have a single click stop at 50mm. And the 50-90 would have one click stop at 75mm. I think that would be quite useful. A lot of users of the TEs probably like the fact that there's (effectively) no in-between settings.</p>

<p>The use of zoom optics is I think implicit in the fact that the M allows users of R lenses an upgraded digital body. Of course, an adapter is required, which wouldn't be if the zooms had an M mount. Do you not think that M rangefinder is a type of photography that works best with small fast optics? There are sone small fast zooms out there, but I think that they are fairly rare. Perhaps what the live view function of the current M240 really needs is a moveable LCD screen like that of the Sony A7 or A7r or some NEX bodies. </p>

The first one already exists - it's the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar.

<p>I never understood why they cancelled the original Tri-Elmar - perhaps they will bring it back? The landscape has changed radically now they have a digital Leica.</p>

A true zoom could only be used by the M in real time mode. Presumably they want to at least have a market for everyone

with a Leica M (a small enough market as it is). It seems unlikely.

<p>The Tri-Elmars are interesting ... but I think Leica photography is a story about Primes</p>

<p>So many Leica users profess to infrequent use of lenses over 35mm that a click stop RF connected 50-90-135 of light weight & modest aperture or more simply 90-135 could be very useful. Non RF zooms would be crazy, in my opinion, but a purpose built 1:1 macro to infinity 50mm or 90mm could be very useful. Like it or not, the M is now a platform for any purpose.</p>

<p>The old Tri-Elmar was clunky. I suppose that's why it was discontinued. <br>

Zooms on rangefinders is a tenuous business. Enter live view with the M 240 and the problem is solved. You have a variety of adaptors and a sultan's harem of zooms to choose from. If Leica made a special zoom in M mount for the M 240 it would be very expense and more likely would not be able to compete with the many excellent new and used zooms on the market. </p>

<p>I think we have to assume that the original 28-35-50mm Tri Elmar sold poorly. It may well have something to do with it being slow (f4)- certainly I for one associate the M with fast lenses. Nothing wrong with its performance though.</p>

<p>Zooms?? We don't need no zooms on a Leica M digital or not! :)</p>

<p>I've owned two Leicas, a 3f and an M2R and I loved the M2R to death. But the truth is, Leica the company has been a little bit thick-headed about certain things. I attended a couple of Leica Flying Short Courses years ago and they insisted you could not use a motor drive with a 35mm camera because it would cause static electricity to build up and ruin your negatives. This, with a camera that was invented to use 35mm movie film. Why didn't the movie cameras have the same problem? At the FSC's they would literally stand on a Leica to show you how solid it was and how you could not have a back that slid off so you could reload the film without calling in Willie Sutton (the bank robber). I liked the Nikon F system. If Elvis was in the building (and I photographed him a few times) you might just want to reload the camera in a hurry so as to get more photos of the dude.<br>

The old fashioned way of taking photographs, which was very big in Europe, is you took your time, weighed everything carefully and taking a photo was an event, not snap, snap, and snap endlessly. There is some basis for that idea but in my humbug opinion Leica has always gone overboard in that direction. A little fuddy-duddy.</p>

<p>"I think we have to assume that the original 28-35-50mm Tri Elmar sold poorly. <strong>It may well have something to do with it being slow (f4)-</strong> certainly I for one associate the M with fast lenses. Nothing wrong with its performance though."</p>

<p>That would be my guess, if it had say been F/2.8 I think it may have found more of a market. The modern wideangle version seems to make more sense as an F/4 lens, especially with the m240 and the ability to do without the big extra viewfinder.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nobody worries much about slow SLR zooms, which were hard to focus manually full aperture, but are now a bit more practical with autofocus. <br>

Leica f4 RF lenses, properly calibrated, focus just as accurately full focus as f1.4 lenses at the same aperture.</p>

<p>I'm thinking more shutter speed/DOF control, a 28-50mm F/4 SLR lens wouldnt be valued as highly as a 16-21mm F/4 one.</p>

<p>I am sure you are right, jonathan. 16-21mm images would all have the same DOF characteristics, ie, more or less unlimited, and the 16-21 range is otherwise poorly serviced by Leica.<br>

A 16-21 SLR lens, however would be much more likely to exhibit linear/ pincussion distortion if that was an issue.</p>

<p>see results of Tri-Elmar (macro-zoom-use) on digicam at <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00ca2I">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00ca2I</a></p><div></div>