Thank Patrik for revealing these lenses before Photokina.
There was a long time in the past that there were only very few lenses available for the ultra-wide angles. There were 16mm f8 Zeiss Hologon and Leica 21 mm. It was like that for many years.
With the introduction of the Zeiss Ikon system, Zeiss started with 21 and 15 leaving Leica being in a very weak state of only having 21.
Leica introduced the coding system for their M lenses. Although it was intended for the communication between Leica lenses and M8, the commercial intention was the attempt to exclude people from using Zeiss lenses on M8. I am pretty sure that Leica would not code for Zeiss lenses even if you send them the lenses.
Leica entered a new era of introducing a tri-elmar-M 16 18 21 f4. I have mixed feeling with this lens. Very few lens maker is able to make good wide angles, it is even more difficult to make a good wide angle lens with three different focal lengths. Is Leica trying to do too much at a time ? I hope I am wrong.
Zeiss do know what they are good at and now we are seeing the flourishing of wide angle Zeiss lenses. I agree that Zeiss should concentrate in making primes with small apertures before embarking on zooms. I know Zeiss is famous for making good zooms but primes excel in optical quality. When I am using my Biogon 21 2.8, I noticed it being less good compared to my C-Y distagon 21 2.8 so there is certainly rooms for improvement. I am glad that they introduce the 21 4.5 and I would expect it to be better than 21 2.8.
I already have ZM 15 2.8 and ZM 21 2.8. I am sure you will expect me to to buy the two new biogons instead of the new tri-elmar-M. Do you think M users like tri-elmar, the answer is obviously not. It is against the original M principle to introduce the tri-something especially in the field of complex optics.
There was a long time in the past that there were only very few lenses available for the ultra-wide angles. There were 16mm f8 Zeiss Hologon and Leica 21 mm. It was like that for many years.
With the introduction of the Zeiss Ikon system, Zeiss started with 21 and 15 leaving Leica being in a very weak state of only having 21.
Leica introduced the coding system for their M lenses. Although it was intended for the communication between Leica lenses and M8, the commercial intention was the attempt to exclude people from using Zeiss lenses on M8. I am pretty sure that Leica would not code for Zeiss lenses even if you send them the lenses.
Leica entered a new era of introducing a tri-elmar-M 16 18 21 f4. I have mixed feeling with this lens. Very few lens maker is able to make good wide angles, it is even more difficult to make a good wide angle lens with three different focal lengths. Is Leica trying to do too much at a time ? I hope I am wrong.
Zeiss do know what they are good at and now we are seeing the flourishing of wide angle Zeiss lenses. I agree that Zeiss should concentrate in making primes with small apertures before embarking on zooms. I know Zeiss is famous for making good zooms but primes excel in optical quality. When I am using my Biogon 21 2.8, I noticed it being less good compared to my C-Y distagon 21 2.8 so there is certainly rooms for improvement. I am glad that they introduce the 21 4.5 and I would expect it to be better than 21 2.8.
I already have ZM 15 2.8 and ZM 21 2.8. I am sure you will expect me to to buy the two new biogons instead of the new tri-elmar-M. Do you think M users like tri-elmar, the answer is obviously not. It is against the original M principle to introduce the tri-something especially in the field of complex optics.