Re: [Leica] First Tri-Elmar available.

[dmorton@journalist.co.uk (David Morton)]

B. D. Colen writes:
>
> I must be missing something here...Collectability aside, the prime
> attraction of the M series its the outstanding mechanical quality of
> the camera and the equally outstanding quality of the lens optics.
> LUGERS debate endlessly about which version of which l!
> ens, with how many elements, is how many gnat hairs sharper than what
> other version of the same lens. Fine. So why the excitement about the
> new Tri-Elmar?
>
>
> According to the literature posted at the Leica website, the new lens
> "is distinguished by a good to very good renedition at all three focal
> lengths...
>
> "Aberrations such as coma, vignetting, and curvature of field are small
> to begin with and can be virtually eliminated by stopping down to
> f/5.6-8..."
>
>
> "Good to very good"? For $2,000
>
> "stopping down to f/5.6 to f/8" ? For $2,000
>
>
> What happened to "excellent to very good"?
>
>
> Granted, this is the first sort-of-zoom for a rangefinder - right? But
> given the quality of each of the individual lenses, and given the small
> size and weight of each of the individual lenses, and given that while
> not all of us have 28s but virtually all of!
>  us have 35s and 50s that will fit in the same coat pocket and will
> produce razor-sharp images, what gives?
>
>
> I know it's a Leica...But that doesn't make it worth running out to
> spend $2,000 for. In fact, it sounds like the Leica equivalent of the
> original Nikkor 35-85 (?) zoom. It was compact, but the images it
> produced sure weren't up to Nikon quality.

You mean the 43-86, I think, which had four legs & a tail, went "woof" and
ate Pedigree Chum.

I agree with you, I can't really see the point, it's not that it's *small*
 for what it does.
 
But it'll sell, and sell in decent numbers, I'll wager.

ISTM that the public now see a zoom lens on a still camera as a "must
have". You get *loads* of nonsense in places like rec.photo.35mm about how
"zooms are just as good as fixed focal length lenses". No matter that in
99.9% of cases this just isn't true. Zooms are what they want, and zooms
are what they'll get.


            David Morton | "I've finally figured out what's wrong with
dmorton@journalist.co.uk | photography. It's a one-eyed man looking
   Islington, London, UK | through a little 'ole. Now, how much reality
      (+44) 171 272 8908 | can there be in that?" (David Hockney)