I don't know if anyone from Leitz marketing pays attention to this sight but there are two lenses I would like to see them produce. One would be a 21-24-28 tri elmar and the other would be a 75-90-135 tri elmar.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 05, 2001

Answers

How about a 35-50-90?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 05, 2001.

I'll take a 21,35,90 -- f2 of course!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 05, 2001.

Buy the 21/24/28 zoom viewfinder and mount a transfer lens behind it so that it projects an image (similar to telescope adapters). Compact, probably VERY slow, and I can't speak to resolution - 8^).

Seriously - Dreaming is good. If Barnack hadn't dreamed, where would we be?

Now, the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar has a 1.8-1 'zoom' ratio.

A 21-28 would have a 1.4 ratio, probably doable. It might approach the size of an SLR 21-35 or 24-50, and would be slow (f/4.5?). It would also intrude on the external viewfinder, and might block the RF windows unless we limit it to 5.6 or so. Thos wideangle front elements get AWFULLY big.

You might be able to get an f/4 75/90/135 (Olympus and Nikon did 75- 150 f/3.5 lenses that were a reasonable size for a Leica M.) It's also a 1.8-1 ratio. Of course, Leica always seems to build bigger and heavier to get the extra reliability and resolution.

A 35/50/90 has almost a 2.6:1 'zoom' ratio. What kind of speed/size/ performance trade-offs can you live with? Most SLR zooms in this range have f/4.5 apertures at the long end and are still big by Leica M standards. (And remember the recently discontinued 35-70 Vario-Elmar-R f/2.8 - Leica couldn't build it to meet specs cost-effectively.)

I don't want to throw cold water on any ideas; I just think that IF Leica DOES read this thread, the more we phrase our aspirations in terms of optical realities, the more likely we'll get taken seriously.

That being said, the real Tri-Elmar is a pretty amazing achievement, so maybe Leica can astound us again.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 05, 2001.

A more compact 90mm 2.8 Elmarit with a less stiff focus ring. The rest of the dream lenses already do exist--they are just hard to justify cost wise. Of course if I was really "dreaming" about Leica lenses, how about the current line of lenses wity a 50% price cut.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 06, 2001.

Better yet, how about Leica R lenses in Nikon, Canon, and Pentax mounts?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 06, 2001.

A 35/1 would be really cool.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), September 06, 2001.

The real problem with all of our dreams, and one of the main limiting factors of M lens design, is viewfinder obstruction. One sometimes gets the impression that people feel that Leica is incompetant as they are unable to produce for the M camera what other manufacturers have been doing years ago for their SLR cameras. If you have ever compared M and SLR lenses, you will notice an amazing difference in bulk and front element size. Leica has already stated that a 35 to 75 or 90 version of the TE would be impossible due to viewfinder obstruction. I imagine the same applies to a super wide version as well. There are just times when you are going to have to reach for that SLR.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 06, 2001.

Which is why Bill's dream is the best one.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 06, 2001.

His dream of R lenses in Nikon/Canon/Pentax mount.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 06, 2001.

I'm easy to please. All I need is

(a) Quadro-Elmar 1:4/21-35-50-90 or even just a

(b) 75 'cron

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 06, 2001.

I remember a few years back when I saw a lens for a 16mm Arrriflex, made by, I think, Anginieux. 14 - 75mm (equivilent to a 28 - 135 in 35mm) F1.0. HUGE - the front element was at least 6 or 6 inches, and had a price to match. Interesting I thought - wonder how big it would be for 35mm.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 06, 2001.

Bill and Mani, you could go that route via an adapter; e.g. go here and click on "adapters" to see what's possible. If you wonder why Nikon SLR users are SOL, a list of lens registers explains it.

If you want "the real thing", you have to follow Andrew Nemeth's route, who had his F2 converted to R mount. (Click here for the story.) This spares us the pain of having to use stop-down metering.

Yes, ¡Leica lenses in Canon EF and Nikon AF-S mount, please! In case anyone at Solms should be listening to the customers for once, have you ever imagined an Apo-Summicron f:2.0/180mm USM on a Rebel 2k?

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), September 06, 2001.

Oops, the list of lens registers is here.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), September 06, 2001.

A new 135mm-R f2 would be nice and a great fit. A 28mm-R f2 and perhaps a recomputed 24mm-R (not that I have used the current one). I don't use zooms, so I don't much care about them one way or another. Perhaps a new 90mm-R f2 APO is required too, but I am not sure as there is the 80mm 'lux and the '100mm. Certainly though the 90mm is a classic focal length and the R series no longer has one. I think the forthcoming new 15mm is a complete white elephant myself - why not make a lens that people will actually need? How many 15mm shots do you take a year - are you willing to pay $3,000 for it? I thought not. Is it some macho thing about matching Zeiss, Canon etc.?

For the M a 75mm f2 or f2.8 would seem obvious and a great partner with the 35's. One trend I don't really go for with the M lenses is that they are all becoming larger and larger. The size of the 35f1.4 amazes me! Particularly with their large shades! I was also surprised at the large size of the Elmarit-M 90mm. We buy them because they are so superb optically, but I remember when M lenses seemed to be much smaller.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

It would be great if we could get a set of lenses that maintained the original concept what made the M series shine... a small, stealthy, low profile camera. My Nikon FM2 with 85mm f/2.0 Nikkor lens is not much larger than my M6 with 90mm f/2.0 Summicron. Size wise, there would be no advantage using the M camera after the 50mm lens, and operationally, the SLR really comes out ahead with the medium telephotos.

If Leica would produce a tiny 75mm lens that is not much larger than the current 50mm Summilux, then a two lens walking around outfit consisting of the 75mm and either a 35mm or 28mm f/2.0 would be a return to a truly useful and non-intimidating set-up. In the M lens range, we have four different 50mm lenses, two different 28mm, 35mm and 90mm lenses... and yet the logical addition of a real handy 75mm f/2.0-f2.8 has not been offered. Judging by the response of the Leica snobs buying the V'lander f/2.5 upon its release, it should be clear that this lens is desired and would sell.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 06, 2001.

The Leica lens that I'd REALLY most like to have: A new multicoated f:3.5/50mm Elmar from the "O" camera, in LST mount.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 06, 2001.

I concur with Robin and Al: a 75E is badly needed, not only for size, but also for price considerations. I'm currently a poor one-lens (35 ASPH cron) type, and am dreaming of what my next lens will be. A 50 cron probably, but I would rather have a 75, but can't afford the lux, and just don't need f1.4.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), September 06, 2001.

Yea, I'm with Bill on that. Give me a 50/3.5 Elmar (from the 'O'-Series) in an M mount. Leica could do that easy, and then we'd really have a pocketable Leica M.

Oh, and the 75 'cron or Elmarit would be nice too (it's gotta be small or don't bother making it).

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), September 06, 2001.

The 75 Elmarit or 75 'cron is a popular dream lens, but what about this:

Take the 3E concept, but cut it to two focal lengths, a short one and a long one, with the one in the middle skipped. I think a 35/75 BiElmar would be a very cool and useful lens. How about a 28/50 2E that's lighter and smaller than the current 3E? or a 50/90? Maybe they could be small enough to deal with the VF obstruction issue.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), September 06, 2001.

Paul

I like!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

I'd like to see the fastest possible 75mm that can still use 39mm filters. This would be convenient, and it would also keep the lens nice and slender. A full f/2 would be pushing it, but I think it could be achieved at f/2.1, or certainly f/2.2 at the outside. Leica might not feel they could call it a Summicron if it's not a full f/2, but that's their problem. Alternatively, a full f/2 could be achieved with a 39mm filter at about 72mm FL. That would still be fine.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 06, 2001.

Paul has an interesting idea, a 2E lens. I have a 3E and almost always shoot at 28 or 50. A 2E should be much easier to produce than a 3E in any of the focal length ranges. How about a 28/75 2E or a 24/50 2E. I like the 3E concept as it really cuts down on lens changes.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 06, 2001.

If I can really dream....the 75 f/2 Summicron (I can live with 46mm filters) But I want it 'tuned' to really pair with the 'fingerprint' of the 35 pre-ASPH (or the 75 1.4), maybe as Leica's new portrait lens - i.e. I'd give up corner performance wide open and a touch of contrast for center resolution and micro-contrast and a beautiful balance of aberrations to make the backgrounds glow. Tack sharp everywhere by f/4 - 5.6, of course.

I fully expect the 2000 Anastigmat (the 'official' name of the 0- camera's lens) to be out in interchangeable mounts within a year. Maybe sold like the early M-mount Super-Angulons - take out a couple of screws and the M-mount comes off, revealing - SUPER-SCREWMOUNT!! In black and silver chrome, natch.

If they can figure out a way to sweat the 21/24 ASPH mounts down to 49mm, that would be nice, too.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 07, 2001.

I wrote to Solms about 3 yrs ago to suggest the 75mm Elmarit-M idea, using E39. They answered that it was a good idea, but they did not say it was on the drawing board. They should have waited with the Tri-Elmar-M til they could have made it f2.8; f4 is slow. A 75mm would be a nice standard lens. You can mostly get farther away from a subject, but often it is difficult to get close enough. I use the collapsible 50 Elmar-M. It is razor sharp, like a Summi, but wish it were in a rigid mount, like Summi, w/extensible built-in lenshood.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.