I've been checking on the Tri-Elmar for a while now and still can't make up my mind. I know that optics wise this lens is superb. And I also understand the 2 stop compromise. But seems like no one has complainted about the min focus? I mean M Photography is supposed to move in close especially on the wide angle side. So my question: in your practical use of this lens, don't you feel limited by the long minimum focus distance? How come this issue haven't been brought out?

Thanks, Chi

-- Chi H (chihuang@yahoo.com), October 10, 2001

Answers

Chi:

I think it hasn't been brought up as an issue because (IMO) it isn't an issue with this lens... I find 1M more than close enough for my street work - even at the 3E's 28mm postion. The one lens I own that I wish would focus a bit closer is the 21 - it seems that I often can't get as close as I want to my foreground subject.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 11, 2001.

Specifically, the 1m minimum distance seems like an outdated design. I believe the 3E users must have done some research. Is Leica planning to come out with a new lens focus closer or even larger zoom range? By larger zoom range I mean even wider focal length? After all, I don't want to sink a large sum of money only to find out a new version is coming out.

Thanks again. Chi

-- Chi H (chihuang@yahoo.com), October 11, 2001.

I have plenty of cameras and lenses with a 1m minimum focus distance. I've never found the minimum focus distance to be a problem. If I need to focus closer, I pick a different camera or lens.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 11, 2001.

There's no word on a new design. Leica has said before that the current 3E is optimal for this camera - anything with a broader range would be too large and would block too much of the VF.

I've never had a problem with a 1m close focus limit. I usually carry a 90 as well, and if I want closer pics I just switch lenses. The subjects I'm interested in are usually at least a meter away. I've got Nikons and a 55 Micro if I want to take pictures up really close (though they're usually at home in a closet :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 11, 2001.

The rangefinder was not designed for close focusing. There are accuracy and framing issues that make the SLR more appropriate for distances shorter than 1m. There are tools for this and there are tools for that. The Tri-Elmar is an excellent lens, and f/4 is not an issue for me either.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), October 12, 2001.

A couple of clarifications - the existing 28, 35 and 50 single focal length lenses focus to 70 cm - this is only a foot closer than the 3E. The difference is not significant for the type of photography commonly done with Leicas. "Close" in Leica M photography typically means within 4-6 feet of your primary subject, so a 1m minimum is fine.

And the design (and therefore the restriction) is not an old one. The 3E had a mechanical redesign last year or the year before, so it's a current as it can be.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 12, 2001.

I agree with Paul, close photography doesnt mean macro, rangefinders arent real good for that, more the realm of SLR's. (although range finder micro nikkors fetch a fortune, maybe theres a market there?)

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

FWIW, modern SLR prime wide angle lenses tend to focus to around a foot or 8 inches. This can be esp. handy with wide (24, 35) angle lenses because you can get in really close in tight spaces, and you can really fill the foreground of a composition effectively.

OTOH, in practice i don't find the close focus limitations of a the RF lenses all that limiting, except once in a while. No big deal.

-- pete su (psu_13@yahoo.com), October 16, 2001.