Jump to content

Tri-elmar 28-35-50mm questions


Docderm

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, All: 

I am considering buying the above lens to use on my SL and would appreciate your input. 

Currrently I have the macro Elmar 35-70mm F4

 

a) Would the Tri-Elmar offer any advantages? In some forum I think I read that Puts states that the Tri-Elmar is based on the above r zoom lens. 

 

B) If yes, advantages: Which would you recommend version 1 or version 2. Are there any significant differences to consider. d

 

Thanks!

 

Doc Derm

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the R so I can't compare. i can make a few observations about the MATE on the SL. I have the version 2.

 

- The version 2 is slightly more robust mechanically. Optically they're the same (except for the coatings??).

- There are no repairs available to the front element if you have a damaged one.

- It's not a zoom like the WATE.

- It's slightly better on the M than the SL.

- 50mm is best, 35mm is good. 28mm is OK. It improves dramatically when stopped down.

- On the SL exif always shows 28mm.

 

I keep mine for use on my M but I never use it on the SL anymore. It's a good lens but not great. I keep mine because I no longer have 28 or 35mm primes for my M although those would be better optically.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have the 35-70 so i cannot compare. But the version 2 is much more reliable mechanically. This is a great lens for light and flexible focal range. The issues: f4 in low light is not great but that is a small issue. Flare is a bigger one particularly on the M but can be managed on the sl. Then lastly vignetting wide open at 28mm is pretty bad. As per colour and resolution, contrast, there is a big gap with the apo50mm out the noct or even the 28mm elmarit or the 35 lux. However, I am very happy with the pictures i did with this lens during a trip in Spain.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MATE (28-35-50) is no "real" zoom contrary to the WATE (16-18-21).

The MATE offers the three focal lengths and nothing in between. When a WATE is used on a SL it can be used at all focal lengths between 16 and 21 mm. It works like a real zoom.

Both lenses are very small for what they are offering.

The MATE is much more expensive than the 4/35-70 Macro. It is probably worth it's price on a M, but not on a SL (in my eyes).

 

But if Leica made a new small "MATE-like" M lens with for example   28-35-50-75  (a Quad-Elmar) that works like a real zoom, then I would probably buy it.

The WATE is my favorite UWA zoom, because it is very small and can use filters and offers high IQ. And a small midrange zoom QATE (opposite to the bulky SL 24-90) with similar IQ would be a great hit as well. I would even waive AF for that.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MATE (28-35-50) is no "real" zoom contrary to the WATE (16-18-21).

The MATE offers the three focal lengths and nothing in between. When a WATE is used on a SL it can be used at all focal lengths between 16 and 21 mm. It works like a real zoom.

Both lenses are very small for what they are offering.

The MATE is much more expensive than the 4/35-70 Macro. It is probably worth it's price on a M, but not on a SL (in my eyes).

 

But if Leica made a new small "MATE-like" M lens with for example   28-35-50-75  (a Quad-Elmar) that works like a real zoom, then I would probably buy it.

The WATE is my favorite UWA zoom, because it is very small and can use filters and offers high IQ. And a small midrange zoom QATE (opposite to the bulky SL 24-90) with similar IQ would be a great hit as well. I would even waive AF for that.

 

Don't think that can happen due to technical restrictions. The reason the MATE works 35-50-28 from left to right is because of the frame-line selection. So looking at that order, what could happen would be a 35-50-90. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also recall Puts noting that the 35-70/4 and the MATE were designed at the same time, using similar concepts and materials.  The MATE has a much more complicated mount so I see no reason to go to it from the R zoom, which is a true zoom.  I have one and like its results.  Since the 24-90 does much more than the MATE, I don't think we will see a MATE replacement or a QATE.  I also don't think we will see new lenses designed exclusively for the M.  The last wave (28/2.8, 28/2.0, 35/2.0) of M announcements were in fact lenses upgraded to work best on the SL with an adapter.

 

scott

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I tried both, but in the end decided for the 35-70. But it is not related to the IQ which is good for both, but regarding the different price and the macro capability.  And the the MATE is in my eyes a bit awkward to use - a zoom is more natural for me.

But the IQ of the modern zoom lenses is slightly better (24-90).   (MATE is from 1998, 35-70 from 1994, so both are around 20 years old and technology has made big steps regarding the quality of zooms in the two decades).

 

What is your main criterion ?

IQ ?   Both about equal.

weight, size ?     about equal

features ?    35-70 can macro, MATE not

Price ?     depends on the offer you get, but usually the MATE is 3-5x more expensive 

usable on SL ?   both, but 35-70 better  (depends on your taste)

usable on M240 ?   both, but MATE better (with OVF), but I prefer to use primes on the M as they are smaller and faster.

 

I think most users have only one of these lenses - unless they are collectors.

 

But if you get a nice one at a good price, go for it right now. It is difficult to find one in perfect condition.

Out of curiosity I checked ebay and currently there are more than ever and some in really good condition (cosmetically).

Edited by steppenw0lf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the image quality is similar on both lenses? 

I agree this seems surprising in view of the price difference. 

Could this be one of those instances where we have found a really good deal...i.e. price/performance ratio really attractive? 

 

I wonder why the 35-70mm R lens is rarely discussed and the Tri-elmar is the more famous lens. Maybe because the Tri-Elmar is a M lens and R lenses have been undervalued before SL made them practical again? 

Thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the image quality is similar on both lenses? 

 

I wonder why the 35-70mm R lens is rarely discussed and the Tri-elmar is the more famous lens. Maybe because the Tri-Elmar is a M lens and R lenses have been undervalued before SL made them practical again? 

 

exactly so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else have experience with both lenses?

 

It would be great to get a few more opinions as I am trying to decide whether to just stick with my current 35-70mm F4 R lens or considering switching to Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm. It is much more expensive and maybe offers not advantage in image quality? 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTF's in Puts book put the MATE ahead , particularly with corner performance. He mentions the R zoom is a bit soft wide open. 

 

Otherwise there does to appear to be much in it. 

 

The MATE is mechanically very complicated and a b*gger to repair if it goes wrong..... the 2nd version is more reliable. 

 

Good examples are expensive - it had a short lifespan, was expensive even by Leica standards, and low volume, so getting a good one is not that easy. 

 

Mine is 6 bit coded and looks like it was 'as new' left over old stock from 2007/8 when production stopped. There was a spell a few years ago when a lot of similar 'new old stock' and 'unused' stuff appeared from Hong Kong on the internet. 

 

At least it will probably hold its value if you get a good one ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I am trying to decide whether to just stick with my current 35-70mm F4 R lens or considering switching to Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm. It is much more expensive and maybe offers not advantage in image quality? [...]

 

I have both lenses as well. Besides vignetting and distortion (see specs attached) the Mate's main advantage is size but it is prone to flare especially at 50mm. If size is not an issue i would stick to the R 35-70/4 unless you need a zoom covering 28mm.

LeicaM_28-50:4_specs.pdf

LeicaR_35-70:4_specs.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...