Is a <b>24</b>-35-50 Tri-Elmar <i>possible?</i>

[giles_poilu]

Just curious - especially if it could be made as a F2.8 and focus to

0.7m - this could be the (near) ultimate lens with a beautiful spread

of focal lengths for general photography. Would 24 at the wide end

introduce too much of a compromise to the optics?<p>

Obviously having to only activate the 35 and 50 framelines might

alleviate some of the mechanical headaches.<p>

Now Leica have pretty much optimised most of the lens range perhaps

they could work on something like this.

[giles_poilu]

Looks like I screwed up the HTML in the title - sorry!

[paul_chefurka1]

There would be too much blockage of the VF at all focal lengths to make it acceptable to users. The current 3E blocks a lot of the 28mm frame, quite a bit of the 35, and some of the 50. The much bigger barrel size necessitated by a 24/35/50 2.8 would make it very inconvenient - I'd be willing to bet that 1/3 or more of the 35mm frame would be blocked by such a lens.

[paul_chefurka1]

Not to mention the $5000 price tag...

[skip_williams]

There's no reason that such a 24-35-50 3E couldn't be built. It would not be an f/2.8, as it would be too big and block too much of the finder though. But it might be feasible to build such a lens at f/4. My guess is that the R&D wouldn't justify the lens, and it wouldn't survive the vetting process. Also, you can get the 21/35 Hexanon if you want a WA multi-focal-lenth lens, which has very good performance, AIU.

[Robin Smith]

Our guru Professor Dr Puts was a little lukewarm about the 21-35mm Hexanon I thought.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I dont think size is a factor.

 

I do think that no frame selection for the 24mm side is the factor that Leica used to limit the 3E to 28mm on the wide side.

 

I'm also suprised they haven't done a 35/50/75 of moderate aperture.

[cd thacker]

Or how about a 50-75-90? Or 75-90-135? (The latter, especially if it were an f/4, would of course accompany the current 28-35-50.)

[Robin Smith]

A 75-90-135mm f4 would be a hit I think. Has the Tri-Elmar actually been a success though? We do have some users of it on this forum, but I get the impression that although it has admirers as an optical creation most Leica folk think it too slow to be really useful and hence avoid it.

[art_mcl]

If we are trying to stack focal lengths, may I suggest a 28-35-50-75-90-135 Sex-Elmar. A Sex-Elmar could prove to be very versatile. Maybe even a best seller in the non-photo market.

[dale_griffith]

Robin,

I don't know if the Tri-Elmar has been a commercial success, but I can tell you where it's very useful. I just got back from a Southern Caribbean Cruise where most of my shots were outdoors during the day and the Tri-Elmar sure saved a LOT of lens changing. I did also carry a 24 Elmarit for interiors, a 50 Summilux for low light and a 90 collapsible Elmar for more reach, but the Tri-Elmar took care of about 70% of my shots. I have to admit that I don't use it nearly as much at home.

 

Giles,

I don't know if the Tri-Elmar could be made with different focal lengths, but anything that made it bigger would also make it unusable. It already intrudes into the framelines more than I would like.

[ray_moth]

Most M users tend to favour very strongly the faster lenses, but that seems to be a peculiarity of M users. The Tri-Elmar at f/4 is no more limiting than most SLR zoom lenses and no R user complains that the modern Leica R zooms, such as 21-35/3.5-4, 35-70/4 or 80-200/4 zooms are too slow. They're recognised as convenient tools that have their place and do their job very well, but we all know that faster prime lenses may sometimes be needed. The Tri-Elmar should be seen in the same light.