Troll Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 f:4.0 would have been fine. (LTM would have been mouth-watering!.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJG Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Viewfinder, maybe for LTM or M mount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 I think I would prefer 28mm at the wide end. But yes, I do see your point. The Tri-Elmar is the closest thing that they did. But notice that it is an f/4 and it would have to be bigger if it was a 28-70. How much bigger? I don't know. I tried to do a camera size comparison between the Sony A7 + 28-70 kit lens and the Leica M + the Tri-Elmar. The TE was not available, so I chose the 90/2 APO, which is slightly longer and slightly wider. Perhaps this is how big a 28-70 Tri-Elmar would be. Have a look: Link: Compact Camera Meter I think f/4 is perfectly fine. There is so much unnatural attention given to super fast lenses that if you didn't know better, you'd swear that you could never get a shot at f/4 unless it was midday in summer. "Muh low light performance!" Actual photographers, unlike armchair ones, actually do use narrower apertures and they do get their shots. Back in the day, way before my time, many films were ISO 32 or less and maybe you had an f/2 lens to shoot with. That's the equivalent of f/8 and ISO 500. And that's not taking into account your 90/4 or 28/5.6 or 135/4.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage Cameras Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Leica would want any such lens to match the M cameras' viewfinder frames, so a 28-50-75mm or 35-50-75mm would have been a possibility, I guess. It's interesting that there was an extra wide angle Tri-Elmar and a wide to-standard one, but no 75-90-135mm telephoto model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskoi.pohjanpalo Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 3,5 - 5,6 / 35 - 70mm is for Contax G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Back in the day, way before my time, many films were ISO 32 or less and maybe you had an f/2 lens to shoot with. Unless I've misremembered, back in the '50's Kodachrome was ASA 25 (then, a good bit later 64), and the 5cm f2 Summicron was a very Fast lens. Still a performer today. I don't know how attractive a zoom would have been / is to the hardcore Leica customer base - the ones I know are prime lens folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 (edited) A zoom lens is impractical on a rangefinder camera. The closest analog would be a multi-focal length lens like the Tri-Elmar, which was made in two ranges and very expensive. There is no provision for a continuously variable viewfinder. Focusing is also a problem, since it it wholly mechanical in a Leica LTM or M camera. In order to work, the zoom lens would need to be parfocal, i.e., the focus would not change with focal length. It is possible to design a parfocal zoom, generally at the expense of other desirable characteristics. It is an highly desirable feature for cinematic lenses, along with low focus breathing. These lenses tend to be large, heavy, and extremely expensive. For most cameras, automatic focus largely makes parfocal lenses moot. The Tri-Elmar lenses simplified the design by making it parfocal only at three selected focal lengths. I have one (mostly) parfocal, non-breathing lens, a Sony PZ 28-135, which is the size of a traffic cone and weighs 2-1/2 pounds. It is far less expensive than Zeiss cinematic zoom lenses, which start at $12.5K, and can exceed $100K in other brands. Edited January 27, 2019 by Ed_Ingold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Leica made several variable focal length finders in the past - if a zoom had been a viable opportunity, no doubt they could have made one for a short zoom that would have worked well enough given a bit of user experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 Unless I've misremembered, back in the '50's Kodachrome was ASA 25 (then, a good bit later 64), and the 5cm f2 Summicron was a very Fast lens. Still a performer today. I don't know how attractive a zoom would have been / is to the hardcore Leica customer base - the ones I know are prime lens folks. Kodachrome was ASA=10, Kodachrome II was ASA=25 (in my opinion, the best color film ever made), Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 You are right - it was '61 when it went to 25 - which makes sense since I had just got permission to use Dad's Leica as Junior in HS. I sure didn't shoot a lot of slide film back then, but I still have a couple of boxes of slides from "Big Events" in High School. Time flies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_a._junker1 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 I have glass slides from the early 1950's my Dad took on Kodachrome 10. There is no color fading or hue shift, the white shirt in the picture is still white. Great archival film. I still have a box of K64 in the freezer, I'm hoping for a revival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 I still have a box of K64 in the freezer, I'm hoping for a revival. That would be quite amazing. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Leica Vario-Elmar-R 35-70 f/3.5 zoom lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Not a rangefinder (LTM or M) lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Unless I've misremembered, back in the '50's Kodachrome was ASA 25 (then, a good bit later 64), and the 5cm f2 Summicron was a very Fast lens. Still a performer today. I don't know how attractive a zoom would have been / is to the hardcore Leica customer base - the ones I know are prime lens folks. Kodachrome went from ISO 10 to ISO 25 in the 60's. Kodachrome X, ISO 64, later called Kodachrome 64, was a completely different emulsion. While the most popular Leica lens was the f/2 Summicron 50, it was rarely used wide open. Kodachrome 25 was an outdoor film, used at f/8 and 1/125. It was not a low light film, and especially of little use indoors, unless your schtick was purple or orange, respectively. I rarely used f/2 at the time, because the imprecise method of focusing and shallow depth of field were of little practice use for news and documentary photography. Still it was there if I needed it. Most of my photography was with Tri-X film, which had risen to ISO 400 (without any perceptible change in the old 225 nee 180 emulsion itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Blackwell Images Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Wonder why Leica never made a nice little 35-90 zoom? When you're dealing in "zooms" for an M camera, there are considerations not present with an SLR (framelines, for one). The original Tri-Elmar was so over-engineered (to bring up three different frameline sets depending on which FL was selected - 35/50/28), Leica lost money on each one they sold (so I'm told by a reliable source). The WATE, however, required less engineering and operates with one frameline set and is corrected for the widest FL, but still clicks into three distinctive focal lengths. Engineering a sort-to-long "zoom" for an M camera is more complicated than you think! “When you come to a fork in the road, take it ...” – Yogi Berra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 No clue about the engineering side of things. - What I know: I am not happy seeing "lens" or "hood" instead of "subject" in my VF (& dare to assume that I am neurotypical in that regard). While Tri-Elmars looked nice to have I'd add "but not at that price tag". - Cheapo SLR zooms felt like an affordable alternative to a bag full of primes. I am not sure about the Leica market back in Tri-Elmar days but would guess used stuff was already new Leicas worst enemy and the RF community treasured compact lenses? Leica themself marketed the M system as "nice for what it is", suggesting to get complimentary SLRs, to do the SLR thing with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Leica Vario-Elmar-R 35-70 f/3.5 zoom lens. Its an R lens working on a SLR. Difficult to visualize zoom on a range finder as it isn't view through the lens, hence the Tri-Elmar. The other system for range finder Leica's are the old Visoflex [sp]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Its an R lens working on a SLR. Difficult to visualize zoom on a range finder as it isn't view through the lens, hence the Tri-Elmar. The other system for range finder Leica's are the old Visoflex [sp]. OP didn't specify rangefinders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 How many LTM SLRs did Leica make, or with M mounts ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 OP didn't specify rangefinders. He did mention LTM which is...a rangefinder.:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 No clue about the engineering side of things. - What I know: I am not happy seeing "lens" or "hood" instead of "subject" in my VF (& dare to assume that I am neurotypical in that regard). While Tri-Elmars looked nice to have I'd add "but not at that price tag". - Cheapo SLR zooms felt like an affordable alternative to a bag full of primes. I am not sure about the Leica market back in Tri-Elmar days but would guess used stuff was already new Leicas worst enemy and the RF community treasured compact lenses? Leica themself marketed the M system as "nice for what it is", suggesting to get complimentary SLRs, to do the SLR thing with. At about the time of the tri-elmar maybe a little before, the prices on certain used Leica RF lenses especially 4th generation Summicron 35s and 50s came down quite a bit. This was before digital cameras and adaptors were available for Leica lenses. I'm not sure what you paid for brand new Summicron 50 Asph or the 35 Asph, over 2 thousand U.S.D or more, but you could get the latest pre-asph versions in great condition for 6-800 dollars before digital became the dominant light capturing system. When that flipped, the prices of the used lenses rapidly went high as well, probably driving up the price of new lenses to laughable amounts. Its why I've never sold any of my Leica lenses. If I sold a 50, and then decided in a year or two that I want back, its going to be expensive. So I just hang on to the ones I have and they get used on every mirrorless digital system, like Fuji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) How many LTM SLRs did Leica make, or with M mounts Actually, it was done for them by Krasnogorsk in the form of a "Leica-based" SLR, the early Zenit-S (LINK) [but not M in any case] LTM but a different lens to film-plane register Edited March 9, 2019 by JDMvW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now