Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]And following the coining of WATE, the original Tri-Elmar became a MATE. Sadly the MATE is now nearing extinction. The WATE on the other hand is approaching stratospheric prices, since Leica found that its manufacture is much more difficult and expensive than anticipated. Can you say Summilux 35 ASPHERICAL or Nocti? -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison 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 > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information