Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun Nov 4 00:16:13 2007

> Mark, WATE is a pretty well accepted acronym in Leica enthusiast circles, 
> at
> least the ones that I am part of ;-) It is less of a
> monster to type than "LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21 mm f/4 ASPH." lens. I 
> tried
> one briefly on my M7, albeit with no finder (and no
> hood). It handled superbly in my brief play. With no hood and the extreme
> angle at 16, I fell victim to some flare that I didn't
> allow for. In hindsight unsurprising with a large, exposed front element. I
> thought that I was well away from the angle of the
> direct sun on the front. No doubt I was for a 28mm!
> 
> I note that this lens has had a price rise in Europe of about 30%, blamed 
> on
> production costs. Given the current USD vs Euro, I hate
> to think what they might cost now in your neighbourhood.
> With the Frankenfinder (LEICA UNIVERSAL WIDE-ANGLE VIEWFINDER M), I think 
> it
> is an extremely attractive option for scenics with an M
> on a good tripod. However, Leica sources are hinting at new wides, most 
> likely
> not aspherical designs, or that is how I interpret
> it.
> 
> So anyhoo, two new entries for your dictionary,
> WATE and Frankenfinder
> 
> 

How about the wide angle Tri Elmar?
Yes i'm very aware of the lens.
But I need to stay fresh on the vernacular apparently.
What if I was new to the list?
Why not speak plainly?




Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com



In reply to: Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)