Duocron?

How big would a 28/40 Duo Summicron be?

 

Would fit nicely with a 1.3x sensor and a full frame camera.

 

Any lens engineers in here?

 

If they can make a Tri-Elmar...

I think it would have to be fairly large--bigger than the Tri-Elmar, actually. Retrofocus wide-angles that allow the M6/7/P metering to work are not small. Gone are the likes of compact little lenses like the pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux. The Tri-Elmar is not small to begin with, and a lens that is two stops faster and covers nearly the same focal length range must be even larger.

 

It seems to me that it is probably the 28mm specification of the Tri-Elmar, and not the 50mm part, that requires it to be so long. Retrofocus design seems to have a paradoxical effect on the physical size of a lens: the shorter the focal length, the longer the lens. I have often thought (and written here before) that a 35/50 Bi-Elmarit would be shorter than the Tri-Elmar, even though fatter because of the extra stop of speed.

 

I'm not a lens engineer (we do have those here). This is just an observation made by a enthusiast. But I will guess that a 28/40 f/2 that can cover the full format it going to be a large beast.

The only older "Leica" I can think of that has both 40 and 28mm frame lines is the Minolta CLE. The cam that actuates the frame lines in the CLE doesn't match the one used by Leica.

AFAIK,

 

There will be a new wide angle Tri-Elmar for the M Digital.

Sorry if this seems to hijack the thread and please delete if inappropriate.

I understand that Leica has ruled out digital-specific lenses for either the

existing DMR or for the Digital M.

 

The future of digital surely must be in full frame sensors, at least for

professional or high end cameras. Canon are forcing the issue and I believe

that Nikon will be forced to follow. Who wants a crop factor? No one if you

read the digital forums and the magazines. And not me, as if that matters.

 

Unfortunately, Leica has been caught short like most other maunfacturers,

and is temporarily stuck with a sub full-frame sensor. I believe that Leica

must develop a full frame digital M, but it must be understood that the form of

the camera could change. It surely must be larger. The ergonomics can be

addressed but a slightly larger M body seems to be inevitable in this case.

 

Nothing lasts forever. If a slight size increase is unacceptable to some, then

OK, stay with film or with the smaller sensor camera. Increased size seems to

be a mighty small penalty to pay for a full frame sensor with Leica fulll frame

lenses. To return to the original question, dual focal length lenses are surely

possible but technically challenging and potentially financially ruinous. The

current range of M (and some R) lenses are simply the best there is and I

would rather Leica concentrated on full frame innovation, become financially

stable, and then blow peoples' minds with lens innovations.

 

Then again, there is Huw Finney to bugger up the whole argument.

oh. A 35/50 f/2 bi-summicron would be such a perfect lens.

 

if talking about the unpossible-lenses I'd take a 21-35-(50)-75/90 f/2 @ 1300$ thankyouverymuch. And it would be the exact size of the 50mm �lux-ASPH also.

Wayne: You said "Who needs(wants?) a crop-sensor?"

 

I say "Who needs a fullframe one?" The wideangle-options available for Canon (or Nikon for that matter) are actually better on the cropped sensors. The vignetting on the FF-Canons is nothing short of unacceptable, especially for Leica-minded people. And the fact that Canon hasn't got any decent wideangles for the FF-sensors. Nikon, Sigma and Canon have got offerings starting from 10mm for the APS-size. How many times an average photographer has used a lens WIDER than 15mm? Not very many.

If it's easier to manufacture lenses and sensors for the cropped (APS)-size, why on earth wouldn't we?

The image quality is pretty much good enough, as demonstrated by the Nikon D2x and Canon's 30D and 20D.

I think Canon knows this also, and the announcement made yesterday (17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS, the replacement for the bread-and-butter pro-lens of 28-70mm f/2.8) speaks volumes about their so-called "drive for FF".

Not to mention the nearly-prohibitive costs of manufacturing a larger CCD/CMOS, and the problems arising from the larger file-sizes, their transfer and processing, both in-camera and out.

 

And the 135-size isn't really the holy grail at all. If you don't mind a "small" increase in camera size, why don't you wish for a Canon 1DS with a 6x4.5cm sensor? It's a lot better than puny 24x36mm-sensor.

 

The lenses have always varied, from 8x10" to 4x5" to 120film to 35mm. Maybe the next logical step for this would actually be the 1.x-times crop of 135.

 

Now, if they only sort out the viewfinders... But then again, the view through an early SLR must have been quite a shock to photogs used to the Speedgraphic or 4x5" view-cameras. Or even an MF-TLR.

Lucien,

 

I remember you as being very well informed, indeed. Do you know anything more about the wide angle tri elmar, especially the focal lengths of this combination lens?

 

The simplest way to ensure compatibility between old and new cameras and old and new lenses seems to be to design the framelines of the new MD so that they correspond to the crop factor. In other words, the viewfinder of the MD might show the framelines for 28, 35 and 50 mm when a lens of 21, 28 or 35 mm is mounted on the camera (I know these focal length indications are not quite precise, but that is also to some extent the situation to day).

 

Leica will, however, also have to decide whether new lenses should be based on the same design and bayonet as the existing M-lenses, or whether a new bayonet-design, eventually with a rom-contact, should be introduced. A new bayonet seems tempting to me. It could open up new possibilities, including auto-focus, which must come also on Leica, and a new bayonet-design could probably even be patented by Leica, thus ensuring the market for new Leica glass.

 

To the extent that the existing bayonet is continued, Leica will have to solve the problem of creating a new bayonet flange for the 21 mm lens.

 

The existing focal length of 24 mm creates a special problem, which might be solved by a special external viewfinder. Such a solution might also be appropriate for other new wide angle lenses such as a 15 mm lens.

"The future of digital surely must be in full frame sensors, at least for professional or high end cameras. Canon are forcing the issue and I believe that Nikon will be forced to follow. Who wants a crop factor? No one if you read the digital forums and the magazines."

 

Not the best places to get opinions of working pros, with the accent on working. The ones I know, some of them have the FF Canons but many of them have the 1.5 Nikons and 1.6 20D Canon and are happy now that several manufacturers have stepped up to the plate with some decent ultrawide zooms dedicated to the small sensors. What they like is a little increased dof, and the fact the cropped sensors use the best part of the image circle of their existing lenses. Also they like that they can save tons of money on the long, fast glass due to the crop. A 180 or 200/2.8 becomes almost a 300/2.8 for a fraction of the cost. If the small sensors are dead meat and FF is the way of the future it'll be for the same reason people who never enlarged past 8x10 with 35mm film now demand 16MP instead of 8: purchase decisions made solely on the notion that bigger is always better.

"Not the best places to get opinions of working pros, with the accent on working. The ones I

know..."

 

Are the pros you know in any way affiliated with the university you work at?

"I understand that Leica has ruled out digital-specific lenses for either the existing DMR or

for the Digital M."

 

You are right.

 

It will work also on regular M's.

"To the extent that the existing bayonet is continued, Leica will have to solve the problem of creating a new bayonet flange for the 21 mm lens." This statement is not necessarily correct and needs clarification.

 

The M 21/2.8 asph brings up the 90 mm frame (and, eventually the 28 mm frame, too). The flange on the bayonet is, thus, identical on 21, 28 and 90 mm lenses.

 

The M 24/2.8 brings up the 135 mm frame (and, eventually, the 35 mm frame), and the flange on the bayonet for the 24, 35 and 135 mm lenses are, thus, identical.

 

The default frame on M cameras is the 50 mm frame (which, on some cameras, is shown together with the 75 mm frame). The frame selector is in its normal position (normally upwards) when 50 or 75 mm lenses are fitted. The bayonet used on 50 and 75 mm lenses do not have the flange that activate the 90/28 mm frame, respectively the 35/135 mm frame.

 

So we have three different possibilities with the present bayonet design.

 

Above I have concluded that the digital M (in the following: the MD) must probably have framelines corresponding to the cropped pictures produced by existing and future lenses.

 

However, that does not mean that frames on the MD should be combined in principle in the same way as on today's M7, ie. multiplied with the crop factor of 1.33 as: 38/120, 67/100, and 50/180.

 

If nothing were changed, that would mean that the 21 mm lens would bring up the frames corresponding to 38/120, but no frame corresponding to the 28 mm into which the 21 mm lens transforms when cropped with a factor of 1.33. In the same way, the 24 mm lens would bring up frames corresponding to 50 and 180 mm, but no frame corresponding to the 32 mm frame into which the 24 mm lens will transform on the MD.

 

I would, in my opinion, probably be better to combine the frames on the MD so that the 21 and 28 mm lenses bring up frames corresponding to 28, respectively 38 mm, and so that the 24 and 35 mm lenses bring up frames corresponding to 32 and 50 mm. The 50 and 75 mm lenses should still be combined and bring up 67 and 100 mm frames.

 

If my idea is correct, the rangefinder of the MD (in the 0.72 edition) could be used with lenses of the following focal lengths: 21, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 75 mm, and the rangefinder's frames would show cropped pictures corresponding to 28, 32, 38, 50, 67 and 100 mm, and the frames would be combined in the following way: 28/38 mm frames (for 21 mm and 28 mm lenses), 67/100 mm frames (for 50 mm and 75 mm lenses), and 32/50 mm frames (for 24 mm and 35 mm lenses).

 

The present Tri-Elmar would be useable without problems, since the corresponding framelines (38, 50 and 67 mm) would still be in the MD's viewfinder.

 

A new wide-angle Tri-Elmar should then probably be a combined 21, 24 and 28 mm lens giving cropped pictures in the MD's viewfinder of 28, 32 and 38 mm.

 

A new Tri-Elmar wideangle consisting of a combination of 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses (giving cropped frames corresponding to 32, 38 and 50 mm pictures) would be less interesting. It would overlap the existing Tri-Elmar too much and would not sufficiently make use of the new possibilities that the MD offers.

 

All this being said, I do not know what is technically possible or desirable.

For my own uses I am getting a bit tired of the excessive employment of ultra wide angle lenses for situation where a narrower angle would convey more useful information and less spectacular distortion. The current fashion in some of the motoring publication for quartering frontal photos with the grille nearly in contact with the lens is as non informative as those cute shots on Animal Planet where the mutt gives the camera the cold nose. Difficult as it may be to estimate how long the current wide angle mania will last, it may come to a halt when it is realized that the sensors will not accept the angles that are possible with film, and perhaps that is the best we can expect for the near future. Retrofocus lenses appear to be a method of solving some of the problems, but a more sensible approach to realistic photographic demands will relegate the ultras to the exotic and prohibitively expensive.