Once or twice I've ooked at ways of slowing down my photography so I plan out my shots a bit better rather than just snapping away. I've started to use manual focus, I've imposed the artificial restriction of only one capture per view etc. One other way I've considered is using primes. I often really don't like changing lenses though... when you're dangling half way down a crevas it's the last thing you want to be doing.
As a result I looked a while back at getting a leica tri-elmar lens, probably the wide angle one, giving equiv focal lengths of 32, 36 and 42. Not a great range tbh and very expensive.
It got me thinking though, is there any optical benifit to engineering a lens to be good at a select few focal lengths, rather than acorss a continuous range, or was it done by leica so that it would work with the framelines in their range finder cameras (and also not tarnish the name by having a zoom lens ).
Normally zoom lenses seem to be good around the middle of thier zoom. Do you think it would be possibly to engineer a lens that was ideal in the middle and either end of the zoom, but not worry about the performance anywhere else? Would it be any lighter/cheaper than a zoom lens that was just brilliant throughout?
Just a bit of a thought exercise really.