[Leica] Is it just me?

[jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier)]

Well that depends on how good the new wide Tri-E is wide open. The 21  
Asph is a little soft in the corners wide open. I found I had to  
close it down a stop to improve the corner performance. So, for me,  
the Asph was a f4 lens.

Of course the finder will be brighter...

John Collier

On 29-Nov-06, at 1:57 PM, Philip Forrest wrote:

> 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.