New Tri-Elmar 16/18/21

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"Surely the very useful 28,35,50mm's spacing set some sort of useful benchmark for the Tri-Elmar product concept!"

 

In spite of what you may think, the Tri-Elmar is not a big seller because at f4 it is a very slow lens and, with the possible exception of the 50mm Summicon, the primes out-perform it stop-to-stop by at least a generation. In fact I have heard talk of it being discontinued.

[andy_piper2]

Simon:

 

1. Leica already makes 21, 24, and 28 lenses. The purpose of this lens is to replace those

focal lengths on the cropped M8 sensor, not to duplicate them in a varifocal lens.

 

2. There are photographers who like the 24mm field of view, and will use the "18mm"

setting. There are photographers who prefer the 21mm field of view (like me) and would

use the 16mm setting.

 

Leica could have designed and manufactured two prime lenses, an 18 and a 16. But given

that they had only two years and 30 million euros to do this whole project, one vari-focal

lens covering the bare minimum of focal lengths needed was likely the best solution tha

could replicate the old Leica 21/24/28 lens pattern and still meet the budget and

deadline.

 

It would not surprise me to see separate 16 or 18mm primes eventually appear - if the M8

is a success.

 

3. The Leica M rangefinders have strict constraints on lens size - the optics have to fit in

the diameter of the M-mount, and the lens must be small enough that it does not block

the rangefinder window right above the lens.

 

The longer the zoom range, or the faster the lens, the bigger it grows (or the worse the

optical quality gets). Looks like this lens is 55mm filters and quite long, so it probably

cannot be made larger.

 

4. Leica's internal framing mechanism allows for only 3 settings. We normally see them in

the three pairs 28/90, 50/75, 35/135. While framing per se will not be an issue with this

lens, it is very likely that Leica is using the frame-selection mechanism to record, for EXIF

data and lens correction software, which focal length was used - in combination with the

6-bit zebra code now being added to all M lenses.

 

The Zebra code tells the camera's computer "This shot was made with the 16-18-21 Tri-

Elmar" - the position of the framing mechanism tells the computer WHICH focal length

(16, 18, 21) was used. Just as a ROM chip would on SLRs.

 

Since there are only 3 possible settings, no lens can have more than 3 focal lengths.

[eliot_rosen1]

The question is still, will the new trifocal lens be useable on film Leicas? Leica has said that newly designed lenses for digital will also be useable on the M7 and MP.

[andy_piper2]

Eliot: at the risk of repeating myself:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Andy Piper , aug 28, 2006; 03:50 p.m.

Oh - and YES:

1. it is f/4 at all focal lengths - variable max. apertures are for SLRs

 

2. it covers the full frame, if film users want a set of superwides. That's why the finder includes fields of view settings for "real" 16 and 18mm fields of view, as well as the 21-24-28 fields for M8 users.

[eliot_rosen1]

Thanks Andy. In that case, Leica has added two new focal lengths (16 mm and 18 mm) to its repetoire of M lenses.

[frederick_muller]

I used to use (and still ocasionally use) zooms on my SLRs. I did not carry zooms just for the focal length range. Rather the zoom capability gave me a range of focal lengths and facilitated flexibility in framing and composition. The wider you get, the more difference a millimeter makes in angle of view. I can see utility in having both 16 and 18 mm discrete focal lengths in a Tri-Elmar in that they facilitate composition, framing, and the manipulation of perspective.

 

Perspective is going to be surprising to some folks, I think. Already, with the RD-1s, I am encountering some surprising results ... for example, using a 50mm as a portrait lens, and moving up close because the crop is that of a 75mm. One finds that the perspective is that of a 50mm (big surprise) and the nose-to-ear ratio is exagerated as it would be with a 50mm shoved up close. Use a 28mm with the perspective of a 40mm in your mind's eye, and you will be surprised as well. If your subject's hands are extended closer to the lens, your subject's hands will appear the size of those belonging to a concerct pianist or an NBA slam-dunker.

 

The wider you get, the more those perspective issues are going to be exagerated. Maybe I am stating the obvious to those who have been shooting digital for a while, but I've been shooting digital for less than a month, and I'm still coming to grips with these issues.

[eliot_rosen1]

Frederick, the perspective is determined only by the distance from the subject, not by the lens focal length or crop factor. A 50 mm, 75 mm, or 28 mm lens will yield the same perspective when used at the same distance from the subject. You can see this if you select the same portion of the image to view and enlarge appropriately.

[simonpg]

Thanks Andy, a fair point you make. I suppose that since the primary market segment for this lens will be the digital cropped frame market the focal length spacings make sense. And given the market's general obsession with zooms, a second Tri-Elmar also makes much sense and is a practical (and better optical quality) alternative to true zooms not possible on a rangefinder.

[andy_piper2]

Eliot: yes - AND they have an aperture range from f/4 to f/22 instead of the Hologon's fixed f/8, and they have RF focusing instead of scale focusing.

 

Now all we have to do is hope it's real - as my Leica rep said in adhering closely to the NDA, "Ya never know....Ya just NEVER know!"