Why a 16-18-21 lens??

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.
--
John Ellis

John Ellis said:

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be
more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new
lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.
--
John Ellis

Click to expand...

Agreed, apart from the engineering achievement I don't see the point. But then I never saw the point of zoom lenses either!

When lens goes wide, you will have visible different perspective, especaily when shoot close range, it makes more pronounced difference.

Terao said:

John Ellis said:

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be
more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new
lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.
--
John Ellis

Click to expand...

Agreed, apart from the engineering achievement I don't see the
point. But then I never saw the point of zoom lenses either!

Click to expand...

--
Khun_K

for specific focals, compared with a zoom?

John Ellis said:

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be
more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new
lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.
--
John Ellis

Click to expand...

--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================

John Ellis said:

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be
more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new
lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.

Click to expand...

It is because this new lens "equals" the fields of view of the previous Tri-Elmar with film.

McCluney Commercial Photography

Given the crop factor of the M8, these three focal lengths provide the same angles of view as 21mm, 24mm and 28mm lenses on a full frame body. So if Leica photographers are used to using these focal lengths, 21,24 and 28, they can get the new Tri-Elmar lens and a M8 body and more easily make the transition to digital.

It's easier to work fast when you're familiar with how a given focal length behaves. Many M photographers have never used zoom lenses. So picking the right lens quickly is important if you're going to get the shot.

Why oh why didn't Leica build the M8 with a viewfinder capable of matching the fields of view of 21-24-28?

No it doesn't. The old one was 28-35-50. This is not even close to that... though if the quality is up to snuff... it could be a dream lens for wide angle shooters... and maybe a real replacement for the 16/8 hologon.

Gene E. McCluney said:

John Ellis said:

These three focal lengths are so close together--wouldn't it be
more sensible to have a 16-21-28 or some such? Sounds like this new
lens is not much different than takiing a step foward or backward.

Click to expand...

It is because this new lens "equals" the fields of view of the
previous Tri-Elmar with film.

McCluney Commercial Photography

Click to expand...

--
Rob aka NoTx...
--- Forever Learning

Because it hits all the classic "focal length stops" without skipping any.

you are skipping 18 and 24 which would bug people a lot. By using 3 consecutive ones, they could always make a 24-28-35 lens to fill in.

Also, remember that at the wide end, 1mm is a big difference, so you want those close increments.

It also compresses everything into a lens that if you were shooting film, or a FF digital in the future that you probably just wouldn't use. People have a good number of lenses 24mm and up. This is the Crop factor adjuster lens. Just like on SLRs where 12-24ish lenses are now popular to fill in that hole caused by APS, soon as FF gets going strong, people will just scrap those lenses.

Maybe we need a Hex-Elmar

Markbishop said:

Why oh why didn't Leica build the M8 with a viewfinder capable of
matching the fields of view of 21-24-28?

Click to expand...

It would have to be a zoom finder, otherwise the frames for longer focal length lenses would be tiny and useless. As it is the 90mm field is very small. The trouble with zoom finders is it may require a much larger body to accomodate, and you get quite a lot of distortion unless it's extremely expensive. It would probably also be darker than the current finder. For those who think the M8 is overpriced now, I can't imagine how expensive it would be with a zoom finder covering 21mm through 90mm or 135mm.

You'll want to use the 1.25 viewfinder magnifier when using a 90mm lens, or even a separate viewfinder. I'm glad I bought 50mm and 90mm brightline finders back when they were relatively cheap. So if I can afford an M8, all I'll need to get is a 135mm brightline finder.

John Ellis said:

Sounds like this new lens is not much different than takiing a step
foward or backward.

Click to expand...

First, as others have pointed out, the three focal lengths on an M8 correspond to 21, 24 and 28mm lenses in full-fram 35mm terms. The 21 vs. 28 is a very significant change of view and were established in the early years as two of the most popular"very wide" angle focal lengths for 35mm film use. Once you accept that, the 24mm intermediate value is also useful to have, doesn't cost much to add, and also has become a well-established focal length in many film SLR systems.

Second, the new lens is also full-frame capable - a very significant pont because it isn't at all easy to do with high quality. Whether this will ever be useful in digital M cameras depends on whether Leica will eventually solve the full-frame sensor challenge and introduce such a camera. In the meantime it is an extremely signifiicant lens entry for the established base of M film camera photographers.

Here is a table of horizontal angle-of view (in rounded-off degrees) for the various focal lengths: I hope it reproduces properly in your browser, sorry about the lines but otherwise I could not get it to work:

Focal Length_ 16mm_ 18mm 21mm

Horz. Angle of View_ 80_ 74_ 66
View for M8 image

Horz. Angle of View_ 97_ 90_ 81
for FF 24x36 image>

Finally, I would add that changing subject-to-camera distance is not the same as changing magnification factor by focal length change - there is a very significant change in perspective - though I do > understand your comment if it really were just "a step" forward or back.

--
JoelH

I like to shoot with a 21 for subjects where I simply don't have space to back up, or I want a huge backdrop with a person in front, such as say a politician on the steps of city hall. I want the politician as the main subject and most of city hall visible behind rather than just some door frame or maybe a little facade. A 21 is also very practical in crowds where you simply can't back up or someone will step in front of you. (Most likely another photographer with a 21 or 16-35!)

I like the 35 as a normal, for shooting people with just a little bit of perspective to bring on context. It gives better perspectual separation between foreground and background. Many others use a 28.

So I carry two cameras, a Bessa T with a ZM 21 and an M6 with a 35 (or, R9+DMR with Elmarit 28 and a Super-Elmarit 15 and Elmarit 19 in a small bag). For many situations having a single lens on a small RF body would be nice. For me, the current Tri-Elmar doesn't really serve this purpose with film, it's too long.

They could put eyes on the 16-24-21.