Seems like it would make a cool travel lens if it could be packaged small enough. The idea of three primes in a single barrel is intriguing to me. Maybe modern zooms have made this concept obsolete for the masses? Has anyone else had these thoughts, or have I had one glass of wine too many tonight?
Sorry I couldn't come up with a topic that included Nikon tonight...
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Wait... why make this type of lens instead of a traditional continuous zoom lens?
Its made for the Leica M series range finders.
Theoretically the designers could use fewer moving parts/elements so the lens could be smaller and sharper than an equal length continuous zoom.
well I had an Idea about such a lens...why not make a 16-24-35 a perfect landscape lens for DSLRs think about it less lens changing less likely for dust and if this lens was sharp as the 3 prime FLs this would rock maybe Canon could let someone else make it.
TOKINA comes to mind...
I think this kind of lens makes a lot of sense in the case of a rangefinder system, for the reason mh2000 gave, and also probably for size reason (with fewer moving parts and fewer constraints, you can get a smaller lens, which the rangefinder crowd cares about... not the SLR crowd who was able to buy a 2lbs 24-70/2.8 ).
Ariel's got it; the reason the M lenses have fixed FLs is because the LEICAS automatically bring up these framelines on the viewfinders to indicate FOV. There are only certain framelines in the camera, so if it was a full zoom the VF would not show what the lens sees.
these were the coolest thing fo RFs since sliced bread..but with the pricetag of a 300L 2.8, well...they made for good drooling tech .
I used one once (under a very careful lender ) and after that, going back to my 17-40L, it felt like a cumbersome brick both in terms of size /weight and mechanics...way cool.
).
.