Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison
From: tomschofield at comcast.net (Tom Schofield)
Date: Sun Nov 4 16:17:46 2007
References: <000301c81ec6$9453b1d0$6401a8c0@asus930> <C3534798.7381C%mark@rabinergroup.com> <3e7573d40711040703q2f4b2cfdmaddcf72c15f23d6a@mail.gmail.com>
 
No, I think we need to go back to the acronym debate --  28mm is  
still considered wide angle, so the original Tri-Elmar should be WATE  
and the 16mm model should be UWATE.  And don't go calling the 28mm  
Tri-Elmar a TE as the Tele-Elmar has held that designation for decades!

When they finally make the 75-90-135 Tri-Tele-Elmar I have been  
advocating for years, we can call that one the TITEE.  Maybe they  
will sell them in matched sets. ;-)

Tom

On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:03 AM, leo wesson wrote:

> so back to the original question:  how's the linear distortion on  
> the WATE?
>
> leo
>
Replies: Reply from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Reply from ricc at mindspring.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
 In reply to: Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Message from leowesson at gmail.com (leo wesson) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)