Stealth3kpl Posted March 29, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 29, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) How do I distinguish the 2nd version from version 1? Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 Hi Stealth3kpl, Take a look here TRI-ELMAR-M 28-35-50 mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mauribix Posted March 29, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 29, 2010 Hello Pete, The first version had E55 filter thread, the second version E49. That's the easiest way. Second version is supposed to be mechanically better than the first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holgerf Posted March 29, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 29, 2010 The second version does have a depth-of-field scale. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.de/images/thumb/3/3f/M-28.35.50f4.jpg/400px-M-28.35.50f4.jpg Best Holger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted March 29, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2010 (edited) What everyone else said and in addition the second version has a convex tab instead of a milled surface on the focusing collar. The first version takes the same rectangular hood as the 21mm and 24mm ASPH Elmarits (E55 filter). The second version has an expensive mildly petaled circular hood with cut out slots for the viewfinder and can be reversed over the lens for storage. If you are buying either type check that the correct frame lines are displayed at each focal length click stop. This aspect of the later version is mechanically improved over the previous one. My early one needed adjustment but it's replacement (2nd ver.) is fine. As far as I know the two versions are optically identical. The main reason for production being stopped was the glass for the front element became unobtainable, so take care. Bob. Edited March 29, 2010 by gravastar Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 29, 2010 Author Share #5 Posted March 29, 2010 Thanks chaps. What do you feel is an acceptable price to pay for a 2nd version example that is claimed to never have been mounted! (In Pounds sterling). Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted March 30, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 30, 2010 I paid mint (i.e. looks like new) 6-bit version 2 + hood + full warranty about 2400 euro about 1½ years ago so approx. £ 2135 at the current rate of exchange Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashwinrao1 Posted March 31, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great tip on using the Elmarit 24 hood on the V1 MATE. Lovely combo! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted April 14, 2010 Share #8 Posted April 14, 2010 I really wish Leica would put that lens back in production. As was mentioned earlier, I think it got killed due to new EU regulations outlawing lead in glass... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted April 15, 2010 Share #9 Posted April 15, 2010 I think it got killed due to new EU regulations outlawing lead in glass... It may be then, but mechanicals issues, expensive building process and its low sales were the main reasons to stop the production. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted April 15, 2010 Share #10 Posted April 15, 2010 If you've ever seen the cutaway drawing or a picture of the mechanicals, you can understand the sheer complexity and precision of this lens - you could frame the cutaway drawing in its own right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted April 16, 2010 Share #11 Posted April 16, 2010 Those mechanicals make the lens much less robust that you will probably be used to. I dropped mine - in a Crumpler bag - just 18 inches onto the road surface as I got into a taxi and both the focus and focal length rings locked solid. It cost more than £300/$500 to have Leica rebuild the lens. Also, the lenses are located in position using nylon rollers located in slots in a brass ring, so go easy on the lens when you are changing focal length. Do it slowly and deliberately, you gain nothing by trying to do it quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted April 16, 2010 Share #12 Posted April 16, 2010 It may be then, but mechanicals issues, expensive building process and its low sales were the main reasons to stop the production. True. It basically took them two attempts to get it right and it was a very complex piece. But they also make the WATE, which is of similar construction. Where did you hear the above information? I still put my money on the lead content of the glass. The lens was discontinued right around the time that law was passed in the EU. Same law killed the Xpan (lead in solder / electronics) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted April 16, 2010 Share #13 Posted April 16, 2010 I still put my money on the lead content of the glass. No, as has been explained elsewhere on this forum, the lens was discontinued due to the non-availability of one of the aspherical elements (I believe it was the frontmost aspherical element). This element or at least the blank used to make this element was originally produced by Hoya, and Hoya stopped making it for reasons unknown to me. Leica then tried to source this element elsewhere (Kyocera was apparently one source they tried), but found that elements supplied by these other sources made it extremely difficult to maintain the MATE's optical performance. Leica in fact did produce a batch of MATEs employing non-Hoya glass (for the element in question), some of which were sold, but the rejection rate was too high. So production was eventually stopped. At least this is what we were told at the Leica user forum meeting at the Hessenpark from Leica officials a few years ago. Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted April 16, 2010 Share #14 Posted April 16, 2010 No, as has been explained elsewhere on this forum, the lens was discontinued due to the non-availability of one of the aspherical elements (I believe it was the frontmost aspherical element). This element or at least the blank used to make this element was originally produced by Hoya, and Hoya stopped making it for reasons unknown to me. Leica then tried to source this element elsewhere (Kyocera was apparently one source they tried), but found that elements supplied by these other sources made it extremely difficult to maintain the MATE's optical performance. Leica in fact did produce a batch of MATEs employing non-Hoya glass (for the element in question), some of which were sold, but the rejection rate was too high. So production was eventually stopped. At least this is what we were told at the Leica user forum meeting at the Hessenpark from Leica officials a few years ago. Andy That's what I said. Take another look at my post. The glass used for the ASPH element(s) was produced by Hoya and discontinued. Probably because it contained lead, maybe even arsenic. A lot of glass with a high refractive index has lead in it. The new EU regulations banned those and many other chemicals in products, so bye, bye Tri-Elmar. Leica grinds or presses their own aspherical elements. If I remember correctly they pioneered the stamping method. Back when they were still grinding them by hand the rejection rate was enormous. Apparently there was only one person at Leica who was skilled enough to produce useable ASPH elements for the original Noctilux 1.2/50. That's one of the reasons why the f1.0/50 was a non-asph design. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Hoya did anything but supply the glass for those elements. If the glass was discontinued due to EU environmental regulations and Leica could not locate a replacement, then that would be the reason why the lens is no longer produced. I don't believe it is due to mechanical complexity. They went ahead and made the WATE, which is also a tri-focal design and just as complex. I have no idea what the sales figures were. Leica doesn't even release information about serial numbers these days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lll Posted April 17, 2010 Share #15 Posted April 17, 2010 thrid, sorry, but you are wrong. None of the Leica Officials mentioned any EU environment regulations when we talked about the end of this lens. I was in that group together with Andy at the Forumstreffen Hessenpark 2008. And, indeed, Leica bougth the blank pressed element from Hoya, ready to put into the mechanics. Why Hoya ceased delivering was not mentioned by Leica, but they were not able to find a substitute producer, being able to deliver the needed quality. That was the end of the lens. Second: the grindig process of the 1.2/50 Noctilux-aspheres can´t be compared with the contemporrary one in Solms. The old aspherical lenses were more or less handmade, the new ones are blank pressed up to a diameter of approimately 20mm and CNC-grinded for larger diameters. At least 20 years of r&d of production processes cannot be denied, even not by a traditionally manufactuerer as Leica is. The grinding process of today is very sophisticated with magnetic grinding particels which can be concentrated differently through magnetic fields of different strength in exactly specified areas of the lens. Interferometer tested throughout the whole process. Third: the mechanical commplexitiy of the Tri-Elmar is indeed much more sophisticated than that of the WA Tri-Elmar. The WA is a regular continous zoom type with tree following stops for the three focal lengths. The Tri Elmar in contrary is a lens incorporating three fixed focal lengths which are not built by continous floating zoom elements. That is the reason, why you are getting from 28mm to 50, then to 35 and vice versa when setting the focal length. Not easy to handle, especially the coupling to the body without any electronical help. Regards Friedhelm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted April 17, 2010 Share #16 Posted April 17, 2010 I recall it was mentioned by Leica that the alternative producer(s?) could not deliver the required quality, but I thought it was the quality of the glass formulation itself. Not somuch the shape of the blanks. It is worth mentioning that some types of glass need very slow cooling and annealing to get the required properties (up to 1 year), and I believe this also applied to the MATE. Maybe it just was not cost effective for Hoya & the other manufacturers didn't have the time & interest to really sort it out for the same reason of small numbers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe D. Posted April 17, 2010 Share #17 Posted April 17, 2010 Hi Friedhelm. Third: the mechanical commplexitiy of the Tri-Elmar is indeed much more sophisticated than that of the WA Tri-Elmar.I have also heard that Leica did loose money on every single Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 22, 2010 Share #18 Posted April 22, 2010 Hi Friedhelm.I have also heard that Leica did loose money on every single Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm. Taken together, Leica AG has lost money on everything they have produced for years (apart from a temporary profitable blip a couple of years ago). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted May 1, 2010 Share #19 Posted May 1, 2010 thrid, sorry, but you are wrong. None of the Leica Officials mentioned any EU environment regulations when we talked about the end of this lens. I was in that group together with Andy at the Forumstreffen Hessenpark 2008. And, indeed, Leica bougth the blank pressed element from Hoya, ready to put into the mechanics. Why Hoya ceased delivering was not mentioned by Leica, but they were not able to find a substitute producer, being able to deliver the needed quality. That was the end of the lens. If Leica didn't mention why Hoya stopped making the glass, then we really don't know if it was due to the new EU regulations or not... But I am very surprised to hear that Hoya produced the actual ASPH element and didn't just supply raw glass. I was under the impression that while Leica sourced raw material from companies like Hoya, Schott etc, they actually ground or formed ALL of their elements internally. But I guess that's not the case then. Second: the grindig process of the 1.2/50 Noctilux-aspheres can´t be compared with the contemporrary one in Solms. The old aspherical lenses were more or less handmade, the new ones are blank pressed up to a diameter of approimately 20mm and CNC-grinded for larger diameters. At least 20 years of r&d of production processes cannot be denied, even not by a traditionally manufactuerer as Leica is. The grinding process of today is very sophisticated with magnetic grinding particels which can be concentrated differently through magnetic fields of different strength in exactly specified areas of the lens. Interferometer tested throughout the whole process. I guess I didn't explain myself very well. I was trying to say that because the hand grinding of ASPH elements was so difficult, Leica invested a lot of time and money in to new production methods (i.e. stamping, CNC grinders etc.). As a result they probably are at the very top in the industry in terms of the sophistication of their production methods. So, I was very surprised to hear that they would source finished elements from an outside company. Third: the mechanical commplexitiy of the Tri-Elmar is indeed much more sophisticated than that of the WA Tri-Elmar. The WA is a regular continous zoom type with tree following stops for the three focal lengths. The Tri Elmar in contrary is a lens incorporating three fixed focal lengths which are not built by continous floating zoom elements. That is the reason, why you are getting from 28mm to 50, then to 35 and vice versa when setting the focal length. Not easy to handle, especially the coupling to the body without any electronical help. Regards Friedhelm Ok, I see. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll make a new 28-35-50 in the same mold as the WATE. But if the sales figures are too low that will probably not happen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted May 2, 2010 Share #20 Posted May 2, 2010 The Tri Elmar in contrary is a lens incorporating three fixed focal lengths which are not built by continous floating zoom elements. Is this actually the case? The optical layout (visible at http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/IMG_2584.jpg) looks much like ordinary zoom lenses of similar aperture and focal length range. Can anyone point to an optical reason why this layout could not produce a continuous range of focal length from 28 to 50? I'm pretty sure that the reason for the 28-50-35 sequence is not optical but mechanical, that it simplified the task of controlling both the position of the zooming groups and of the frameline selector with one ring on the lens. If so, the reason the lens can't zoom through intermediate focal lengths is just a side effect of the mechanical design - with the beneficial further effect that the optics don't have to provide excellent performance across the zoom range but only at the 3 predetermined focal lengths. That is the reason, why you are getting from 28mm to 50, then to 35 and vice versa when setting the focal length. Not easy to handle, especially the coupling to the body without any electronical help. I disagree about the reason - but either way, it's not a simple task. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.