Why not make the new wide-angle lenses like 35mm for M3?

[venividivici]

Just a thought.

 

Why doesn't leica make the new wide-angle lenses with glasses just like the 35mm for M3? At

least it should be possible with 24mm, and use the 35mm frame line, or may be the 21mm

with the 28mm frame lines.

 

Wouldn't that be great if we can use these lenses without the extra view finder.

 

Thanks

[peter_white2]

It's a good idea. The old goggles were very heavy. But there's no reason they couldn't be made of plastic just like the new viewfinders.

[ronald_moravec1]

The view thru goggles is correct, except it is of low contrast due to all the glass and there is the issue of lens bulk and the issue of all current 35`s can be used on an M 3 with an auxillary finder.

 

Lastly most of the M 3`s are gone and they will not tool up to make special glass for an obsolete camera no matter how good it was. You have to be able to sell enough to make a profit.

[patrick_jelliffe]

Great idea, but the added costs would be huge--look at how much the 90 Macro Elmar accessories go for.

[al_kaplan1]

Theview through thegoggles is not only low contrast but has a lot of barrel distortion. It's difficult to really judge what's in the frame because of the curvature of straight lines near the edges.

[peter_white2]

Barrel distortion can be corrected with better optics. And of course it will be expensive, but the aux finders are already expensive. Doing it with goggles and thereby getting it right has got to be worth something, right?

 

I'd rather a lower contrast image and be able to frame and focus simultaneously than the current system.

[andrew1]

I was wondering about this last night. Of course the point about Leica not going back

in time, as it were, to tool up and make accesories for an older camera like the M3 is

probably the first and last word about this, but we can wish. My M cameras are all

M3's, since I love the finders so much. But lately I have been using my 21mm a

lot. I have no problem using an auxiliary finder for it, but the

plastic foot broke off my CV finder. This got me thinking about an old Tom

Abrahamsson/

Reinhold Meuller project I remember reading about. They made a goggled 21mm

lens, like <A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/Leitz-Leica-Super-Angulon-4-0-21mm-

Mbay-Special-M3-

Rare_W0QQitemZ7613036284QQcategoryZ30030QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQc

mdZViewItem">this one.</A><p>Can anyone point me to more information about

these? Do they really frame reasonably? Would it work with the M3 finder, or only

with a .72? Anyone here used one?

[peter_white2]

Hold Everything! Stop the presses! This is about making the newer wide angle lenses, 24mm, 21mm with goggles so that you won't need an accessory finder on an M6, M7 or MP, or any other M for that matter I suppose. It's not just about the M3.

 

Though I suppose it would work best if it was designed to work with the 28mm frames. What thinketh the cogniscenti?

[skip_williams]

The goggles wouldn't work with the three different finder magnifications that have been available for the M6TTL/7/MP.

 

And I don't think that users would want such a ponderous solution. When the M3 was the only finder available, it was practical. Nowadays, it would be a waste of engineering resources, inventory buying power, and distribution confusion, in my opinion. Accessory finders will have to suffice.

 

Skip

[al_kaplan1]

Once you get to 21mm territory using the rangefinder at all doesn't make a much sense. Zone focussing works fine, and at closer distances I can estimate distance within inches anyway. Years ago I had a 35/1.4 Summilux with "eyes". The view was low contrast and badly distorted. Never again!

[carlo_innocenti]

"The goggles wouldn't work with the three different finder magnifications that have been available for the M6TTL/7/MP."

 

The goggles WOULD work with the three different finder magnifications. Obviously, the goggles should be tailored for a frameline available in the three types of viewfinders (for example, 35 mm).

In the old days, the goggled lenses for the M3 could be used flawlessly on the M2 too.

 

Carlo

[carbon_dragon]

With the (enormously heavy) 135/2.8 you really need the goggles so that you effectively increase the rangefinder base. But with the 35 you don't so wouldn't it be easier just to put a 35mm brightline finder on top the M3? That way at least your rangefinder (though using a separate window) would still have the M3 accuracy. If you use a little clip on meter you can use the Voigtlander 2 shoe adapter to use both simultaneously. It seems a more practical solution to me (it's what I do with the Voigtlander 25/4) (and lighter too).

[steve_george3]

If you have the 0.58 finder you don't need an accessory finder for the 24mm, and you can get away without it for the 21mm. And for longer lenses you can use the 1.25 finder magnifier.