[Leica] Is it just me?

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com)]

Isn't the whoel idea of the 16/18/21 Tri-Elmar to give the M8 the extreem  
WA field of view that is lost on the M8 smaller sensor?  Yes you loose the 
max aperture, but you do keep the fov, and on a film M you get even wider 
choices all in one lens.

Gene


-------------- Original message from Didier Ludwig 
<rangefinder@screengang.com>: -------------- 


> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Leica Users Group. 
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information