M9 & the 28-35-50 f 4. Tri Elmar

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would certainly like to see Leica do something different with their lens offerings and offer a new variable focal length lens instead of trying to fill every hole in the lens catalogue. Really, we don't need 3 21s, 3 24s, 3 35s, 4 50s...

 

The rising value of the MATE just confirms how useful people who have it find it. Don't see that the prices would soften a huge amount if a new lens came along because given the inexorable climb in new lens prices, it would hardly be inexpensive. I'd like it faster than f4 though, more Elmarit or Summicron country.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jonoslack]

I found a version 2 lens on ebay in the end - box caps and absolutely mint . . . . just as well for the £2024 I had to pay for it!

I still haven't got round to getting it coded properly, but I've successfully coded it with a marker pen which I touch up every few weeks - no problems.

 

It's a lovely lens - and even 28mm is pretty sharp (but there is just a touch of CA). For most of my stuff f4 is fine.

 

I'm pretty sure that any new model would not be faster (as it would make it much bigger). I'd like to see it focus closer though.

[michali]

I love both my MATE & WATE, great travel lenses.

 

I've got a Vers.1 MATE self coded, on the M9 each focal length comes up with relevant frame lines, no problems. The focal length at each setting is relayed in the "INFO" pane on the camera and changes as you change the focal length.

 

It's only the WATE which always shows 16mm on the EXIF and "16-18-21" on the "INFO" pane.

[jpattison]

It's only the WATE which always shows 16mm on the EXIF and "16-18-21" on the "INFO" pane.

 

That's probably because there is no frame linkage to tell the camera which is set, and I believe it is a true (continous) zoom design?

 

John

[jonoslack]

It's only the WATE which always shows 16mm on the EXIF and "16-18-21" on the "INFO" pane.

 

That's probably because there is no frame linkage to tell the camera which is set, and I believe it is a true (continous) zoom design?

 

John

 

HI John

Quite right (the MATE isn't a zoom). However, it's worth mentioning that the corrections for the WATE are the same at each focal length - this means that there is no need to resort to the manual selection menu unless you want to have the correct focal length in the exif information.

[marknorton]

I found a version 2 lens on ebay in the end - box caps and absolutely mint . . . . just as well for the £2024 I had to pay for it!

 

Never was an inexpensive lens - just looked up my records and I paid £1450 for my V1 at Robert White in May 1999 and, coincidentally, exactly the same for a secondhand V2 from ffordes in October 2007.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI John

Quite right (the MATE isn't a zoom). However, it's worth mentioning that the corrections for the WATE are the same at each focal length - this means that there is no need to resort to the manual selection menu unless you want to have the correct focal length in the exif information.

 

That was presumably Leica's hope when they designed the WATE and decided they could forego the cost and complexity of coupling the selected focal length to the camera until they realised they needed IR filters for the M8 where the corrections are different for the three focal lengths.

 

With the M9, that requirement has gone away so that the WATE is now "working as designed". It would still be nice to have the selected focal length in the EXIF information such as my trusty Nikons provide.

 

In any future variable focal length lens, they will have to do the same as the WATE, rely on the unambiguous use of the frame selection lever as they did with the MATE or else use the lens code to present a different pattern as the focal length is changed.

[jonoslack]

Hi Mark

 

That was presumably Leica's hope when they designed the WATE and decided they could forego the cost and complexity of coupling the selected focal length to the camera until they realised they needed IR filters for the M8 where the corrections are different for the three focal lengths.

 

With the M9, that requirement has gone away so that the WATE is now "working as designed". It would still be nice to have the selected focal length in the EXIF information such as my trusty Nikons provide.

 

In any future variable focal length lens, they will have to do the same as the WATE, rely on the unambiguous use of the frame selection lever as they did with the MATE or else use the lens code to present a different pattern as the focal length is changed.

 

Certainly the WATE comes into it's own on the M9 . . . . I love mine.

As for a replacement for the MATE, they would need it to bring up the right framelines, so they'd still have to do something mechanical - which was always the problem with it.

 

I bought a new v2 MATE in 2007 (old stock from a dealer) for £1000 (sob) and then sold it in 2008 for £1500 as I didn't really like it on the M8 . . . . so I guess that overall I've paid about £1600 for mine and I can live with that.

[michali]

Hi Jono,

I know what you mean, I noticed that Tamarkin has a newer used one, no shade, and is asking $4195.00, now that's crazy! KEH has one at $2695.00, no shade as well.

And than there was one on eBay coming form Poland! and the guy wanted a tad ovr $5,000.00 go figure!

 

It takes the same shade as the 24mm Elmarit.

[marknorton]

Using the 21/24mm Elmarit hood on the V1 MATE is a monstrosity, clearly chosen by Leica in a "that'll do" decision. I use a 55mm wide angle hood from HeavyStar which is much more compact. Further, many would say the lens doesn't need a hood at all because the front element is deeply recessed.

 

The V2 MATE has its own specific lens hood which had the distinction of being Leica's most expensive M hood until the new generation of screw-on hoods (WATE, 21/24mm Summilux etc) set new levels of "How Much?" disbelief among the hapless punters unfortunate enough to need a replacement.