[Leica] Is it just me?

[rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig)]

Philip

I feel similar. Fast primes is what I like, plus some slow primes which are 
extremely compact. Have never been a big fan of tri-whatevers. Their 
versatility in terms of focal lengths is eaten up by slowness and bulkyness, 
not talking of the price. It's a kind of zoom for RF systems. Not so smooth 
like a slr zoom, but as slow and even more expensive. 

The Tri-E is likely intended for the M8, where it produces field of views of 
21-24-28, that's admittedly (a little) bit more variation. I use 21mm or 
28mm lenses on film cameras often, but rarely have both with me, and have 
never missed the one I left home. Stepping around, or making other framings, 
is ok for me.

What concerns Leica's marketing strategy, I have given up trying to 
understand. A fast wide below 28mm would sell much more, IMO, than this 
particular lens. But so what. I use their gear which suits me well and don't 
care about the rest. 

Didier



 

>When I was handling the M8 a few weeks ago, I heard about this new
>Tri-Elmar, the wide angle one.  16/18/21 correct?  Now, at f/4 aren't we
>giving up a little bit of light for these three focal lengths?  That is, Why
>not just have a 15mm or a 16 or the 21?  A person could get a 21 a full stop
>faster or at the same speed, you could get a range of focal lengths for the
>same price as the new wide angle zoom.  I'm only saying this because the
>difference between 16mm and 21mm is so slight that you can walk it in 6
>steps.  I can't imagine looking at a scene and saying "if I only had a lens
>two millimeters longer (or wider)."  instead, I'd just take two steps and
>shoot.  Three focal lengths, very close to each other in appearance, less
>speed, greater size and more weight.  Granted, I'll not be able to afford
>one, but it seems like this marketing of Leica's is in the wrong place.
>It's an expensive lens to make and the company needs to make up the costs of
>production as well as make a profit, hopefully keeping themselves alive for
>years to come.  This looks like it will be a connoisseur's/collector's lens
>at best but is that were the company should be concentrating it's marketing?
>Perhaps I missed the thread where the new Tri-Elmar wide was run through
>it's paces, but it just seems like a solution for a problem that never
>existed.
>
>Philip