Seeking opinion on MATE Tri-Elmar on M9?

[ashwinrao1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

I currently have an opportunity to get a great deal on a 28-35-50 f/4 tri-elmar (version 1 with E55 thread) locally. I would plan to use it on my M9 as a travel/daytime lens, but have heard mixed things:

 

1. Love, hate, have and use, have and don't use, regretful for giving it up...lots of opinions!

2.Some report loss of contrast on digital M's at 50 mm focal length?

3. ? of triggering incorrect frame lines?

4. Size and balance on an M body?

5. Flare issues?

 

I wanted to get your opinions on this lens, if you have owned it. In particular, I'd be curious about its behavior on the M9.

 

Also, do you all know if there's a difference in optics between the E55 and E49 versions? I have heard that differences are primarily ergonomic, cosmetic.

 

Your opinions are greatly encouraged and appreciated

[ulphoto]

For daily newspaper work I use my MATE Tri-Elmar on the M-9 as my tight shooting lens - i.e. close in and somewhat isolating the subject with depth of field. I keep the WATE on my M8.2 as my wide camera allowing me to work close but take in lots of environment that is relatively sharp. I find both lenses to be really good. I'm always pushing slow shutter speeds - 1/15th with the 50mm focal length and the M9 with the soft release does pretty good but subject movement and my unsteadiness results in alot of motion blurred shots but when they're steady the sharpness and contrast is excellent. I do often see that the 50mm focal length does suffer from serious flare from oblique light, so a shading from the hand might be needed, interestingly it is excellent shooting directly into light sources. The 28mm and 35mm don't have a problem with oblique light. When used on the M8.2 the MATE allows the 50mm focal length to be used as a H&S portrait lens but a tight shot tends to have the foreshortening effect of the 50mm being used so it doesn't have the same perspective of a 75mm used on the M9. I use this set-up for fluid situations so I'm not slowed down trying to change prime lenses. The WATE on the M9 has fabulous wide angle perspective. I am often forced to use the M9 and M8.2 at high ISO - 1000 to 1250 on the M9 and 640 on the M8.2 but the image quality is really rather good for these applications especially when processing the DNG files. I haven't had a problem with frame lines as long as the focal length is at the detent.

[michali]

I have both the MATE (vers. 1) and the WATE among my arsenal of about 15 lenses.

These two lenses are always the first choice for travel, especially in Africa, the biggest plus for me is avoiding lens changes in dusty conditions.

 

As for image quality, I've done a series of comparative test shots at the same apertures with the MATE and prime lenses. IMO there is virtually no difference in image quality that one could immediately point to. Performance is excellent at f/4, with superb contrast and rendering of colors, marginal improvement is achieved by stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8.

 

The only possible issue aside from a max. aperture of f4 (which doesn't really bother me in everyday shooting situations), is the largish size of the lens on an M camera.

 

IMO overall it's a great lens for what it does and its pluses far outweigh any negatives. It was a very expensive lens for Leica to produce and hence the reason it's no longer made.

[ho_co]

See also repeated posts on LuLa by Michael Reichmann with his (later version) 28-35-50 on M9 (for example, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-103/garajonay-dawn.jpg).

 

E Puts has the early version and likes it.

 

There's no difference optically between the two versions.

[Ecar]

I have used my MATE (E49) extensively on the M9 during a recent one-week trip to Venice. The weather was mostly overcast and sometimes rainy, therefore quite challenging in terms of getting sufficient light, particularly in the narrow streets and canals in early morning and late afternoon.

Therefore, the aperture was almost always wide open - and I had to use high ISO values more often than I would have liked. These inconveniences were more than offset IMO by the ability to switch from one focal length to another very quickly in a very "visually contrasted" urban environment.

From this perspective, the MATE is a lot more useful on the M9 than it is on the M8, where I always felt the crop factor made it too long for urban/street photography.

IQ of the lens is very good, but yes, the lens is prone to flare, particularly at its 50mm setting. Also, it's not designed to deliver the WOW! factor that some other Leica lenses provide IMO: I also used the Nocti f/1 in Venice, and that's a different (albeit very subjective) story...

Never had an issue with the framelines as long as the focal length is properly engaged, ie the selection ring clicks into place.

To sum it up: the MATE is a real workhorse on the M9, particularly for street photography in good light - else you may find that f/4 is quite a limitation (unless you don't mind pushing up the ISO significantly) - and if you can avoid flare at its longest setting.

Hope this helps.

[viramati]

I don't own one but was thinking about it until I tried it out in the store. For me the main problem was how much the lens impinges into the viewfinder at the 35 mm end which I really didn't like. So I would suggest trying one out for awhile before buying. Now the WATE is another matter it is an amazing lens and I would highly recommend it.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI There

Well, having owned two MATES and bought 4, I feel like I'm an expert on the subject!

 

First of all, the loss of contrast at 50mm issue. (this is different from the flare that ecar talks of - which I don't honestly find too much of a problem)

I discussed this at Leica, it is something which happened with some copies of the 1st version - it is apparently curable at leica, I think it was something to do with putting some black anti-reflective coating inside - no idea how much that would cost.

 

I returned 2 version 1 lenses to a dealer because of this issue - very disappointing, but also very obvious, but only at 50mm. So, the optical formula may be the same, but this is an issue which doesn't happen on the 2nd version (or on all copies of the first version).

 

I managed to get a minty version 2 on ebay (at some considerable expense). It's a boring lens on the M8 (I thought, which is why I sold the first one) but excellent on the M9. 28mm is just a little soft at the corners (really not noticeable when stopped down a little). It is more subject to CA (or is it colour fringing) than the prime lenses, but still excellent quality. I'm lucky enough to have two M9 bodies, and for casual shooting I like to have the WATE on one and the MATE on the other, with a 90 elmarit in the bag.

 

As for impinging on the framelines - it does a bit - but much less without the lenshood, and as the lens is quite well back from the front, I've found that the lens hood is not really necessary.

 

So, if you want advice - try it out first at 50mm - take as many shots as you can outside , the loss of contrast should be quickly obvious if it's there - if not, then I guess you have a winner!

 

all the best

[Guest BigSplash]

I have the earlier version and use on an M8 as my preferred lens. So far I have used it without a lens hood and have seen some flare as a result. I have now ordered a lenshood.

Frankly when I bought the lens I had doubts that it would yield high quality images compared to a prime focus lens....I remain blown away with the results on both the M8 and M6.

For travel photography or for a day out I cannot think of a better lens to take as a companion. The 28mm 35mm 50mm are very reasonable focal lengths for most travel photography, which with a 75mm and a super wide angle covers just about everything that I need.

 

The limitation of f4 works fine for most subject situations that I have encountered and I have even used this aperture with a tripod for night scenes. Good luck

[Leicaiste]

I was using the second version a lot on the M8 on day-time, mainly on 28 and 50mm.

 

Maybe because it was giving me a short tele (66mm) ?

 

On the M9 I am now using instead the 35/2 Asph + 75/2 combination.

 

I should send my MATE back to Solms for them to tighten the aperture ring. I hardly feel the aperture clicks anymore.

[ashwinrao1]

Thanks for all of your thoughts. Very helpful. Good to know that Leica can resolve the unusual contrast issue, if needed. I am heading off to meet the seller and pick up the lens, if it is as advertised. Hopefully, I have equally positive experiences as many of you.

 

Thanks very much, and all the best!

 

Ashwin

[Guest BigSplash]

Ashwin, hoepfully you are now a proud Tri Elmar owner! As I mentioned I have the first version of this lens (Part No 11890) ..this is the one with E55 the filter size. I have done some research into lenshoods for this super lens and share the following here:

• This lens was apparently originally supplied without a lens hood.
  
• A lenshood subsequently became available and this is still available as an option from Leica (Part No 12592 ...available at 165$ from BHPhoto.com).
  

The later Tri Elmar lens (part No 11625) ..this one has the E49 filter size, had a lenshood that is still available from Leica (Part No. 12450 ...available at 150$ from BH Photo.)

 

In my case I have taken quite a few images with my Version 1 lens and have overall had no issue without a lenshood fitted.

 

Recently in somewhat difficult into the sun conditions I have experienced flare albeit with a UV/IR E55 filter fiitted as I have a M8.

 

After some research on the forum (search: Tri Elmar Lenshood .) I found that Leica in their first version designed the lens with the elements deep inside the lens and they felt that a lenshood was therefore not required. Joachim put in his thread the following which I have copied from his thread:

quote:

from the original Leica product information sheet (formatting due to Joachim): "In order to keep the lens as compact as it is and in order to ensure that the viewfinder image be obstructed as little as possible, a lens hood was integrated directly into the lens. The longer the focal length that is used, the further the front lens lies back inside of the front mount. This guarantees that for all focal lengths the lens's path of rays is not interrupted while at the same time protecting the front lens from stray light."

It seems the optional lens hood was introduced at a later stage. I (Joachim) uses this lens without lens hood. Occasionally, I (Joachim) get some flare at the 50mm position. This happens in situations where I shoot against some bright background where a lens hood would not be of any help. I experienced similar flare problems with my latest generation 50mm Summicrons. Otherwise no problems with the Tri-Elmar. It's a great (travel) lens

Unquote

I have basically the same experience as Joachim. I would add:

 

The lenshood 12592 has a small hole in it for the viewfinder and this I am told is quite delicate and prone to damage. I am also told that the thing is large but not too deep...I cannot judge as mine has been on order since two months!

The lens hood 12592 is the same as the one used for the current 21mm (f2.8) and 24mm (f2.8) lenses. On that basis availability of this lenshood if you need it should be relatively easy.

 

A lenshood cap (Part No 14041 ...30$ from BHPhoto.com) is also available for the 12592 lenshood.

 

I have ordered the above items. The alternative is to buy a simple 55mm screw in metal lens hood on ebay that costs about 8$ from china. According to the above threads it works a treat except at 28mm (f4) where vignetting occurs.

 

Hope the above helps you.

[ashwinrao1]

I am now the proud owner of a E55 MATE, Version I, as far as I can tell. I shot it with the M9, and have only once encountered a washed out image at 50 mm, which was taken with sun just beyond the field of view at midafternoon light, in a contrasty setting.

 

Thank you to BigSplash for all of the information regarding lens hoods. I am going to try without it for a bit, but may go for one if I notice flare or low contrast issues consistently, though I haven't yet, thankfully.

 

I also appreciate the feedback of all of the other posters, as you all have had much more experience than I am made me feel like I could trust the lens in purchasing it.

 

Regardless, I am suprised and thrilled by the lens. It is sharp at all focal lengths, even down to f/4.

 

It seems to balance well on the M9 and doesn't tip the camera over. It's a pleasure to use in hand, and I can see it being a very nice dailytime lens, when paired with my tele-elmarit, to make an extremely compact daytime lens combo for travel of documentary work! The M9's higher ISO stability also makes this lens increasingly useful.

[marknorton]

Only comment I'd make is that the MATE lens mount is by some margin the most complex of any Leica M lens and not especially robust. I dropped mine about 18 inches onto the ground - in a padded Crumpler bag - and both the focussing and focal length rings locked solid. It cost something like €400 to have Leica rebuild the mount.

 

So, it's a great lens, so useful when travelling, but go gently with it.

 

More generally, I would really like Leica to add new variable focal length lenses - much more interesting and versatile than yet more ticks in the box of the focal length/aperture matrix.

[steve70]

Hi, and congrats on the E55 Tri Elmar.

I too own one, 1st generation. My suggestion would be to first make sure that the different focal leinght bright line finders show up on your view finder, as this was an issue wit some of the first models. If that is OK, than the next thing that I would do is have the lens coded, as it will save a lot of time and hassle in trying to switch the lens configurations on the M9.

 

I just got mine back from Don Goldberg for the coding and shot 30 plus images with it and have seen no issues.

Of course the M9 now had to go back to Leica, bu the Tri Elmar was not responsible.

Enjoy!

[jonoslack]

I am now the proud owner of a E55 MATE, Version I, as far as I can tell. I shot it with the M9, and have only once encountered a washed out image at 50 mm, which was taken with sun just beyond the field of view at midafternoon light, in a contrasty setting.

 

HI Ashwin.

That sounds like flare - no problem there. The lenses I had were getting washed out images at 50 in strange situations - often when the lens was pointed away from the sunlight, and sometimes when there was no sunlight.

 

Sounds like you got a good one!

 

I don't use a lens hood on mine either - makes it smaller, covers less of the rangefinder, and if I find I'm pointing close to the sun I shade the lens with my hand.

[ashwinrao1]

Thanks, guys! One quirk I have noted is that if I slowly move from 28 mm to 50 mm focal length, I get funky framelines (almost like all of them are present at once). I rotate just past 50 mm towards 35, and then back, and the proper 50 mm lines are brought up. Alternatively, If I simply turn the focal length barrel rapidly from 28 to 50, the proper 50 mm framelines are also displayed

 

Does anyone else have this issue?

 

I guess I just have to be cognizant of turning the focal length barrel rapidly and decisively...hahah....

 

Thanks for the tips, everyone. I will certainly be careful with the lens, as it seems to be calibrated well with my M9 and is SHARP as anything! I have heard that dropping it can really mess up it's mechanics, so I dare not do that...

[spylaw4]

I have this lens - 1st version 55mm - it's ideal for travel. I've had it coded by the UK Herefordshire expert. On my recent Cape Town trip it was used for 95% of the many photos taken.

 

Yes the 50mm frameline selection can be a little quirky at times, but it was better after the coding - something to do with the re-assembly I expect. I believe this was improved in the later version, which is optically identical. IIRC it was discontinued as the glass for one element became unavailable,

 

It's an incredibly complex lens:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

.

[jonoslack]

I have this lens - 1st version 55mm - it's ideal for travel. I've had it coded by the UK Herefordshire expert. On my recent Cape Town trip it was used for 95% of the many photos taken.

 

Yes the 50mm frameline selection can be a little quirky at times, but it was better after the coding - something to do with the re-assembly I expect. I believe this was improved in the later version, which is optically identical. IIRC it was discontinued as the glass for one element became unavailable,

 

It's an incredibly complex lens: [ATTACH]183975[/ATTACH].

 

Great image - I understood that they discontinued it because it was simply too expensive to make . . . which is rather borne out by this picture!

[marknorton]

Alternatively, If I simply turn the focal length barrel rapidly from 28 to 50, the proper 50 mm framelines are also displayed

 

...which is precisely what you should not be doing, turning the barrel rapidly. All you are doing is putting unnecessary stress on the mechanism.

 

The lens has nylon rollers which engage in slots in the lens barrel and all you need is for these to dis-engage for your day to be ruined. Go easy with the lens, turn the focal length ring especially slowly and positively.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

...which is precisely what you should not be doing, turning the barrel rapidly. All you are doing is putting unnecessary stress on the mechanism.

 

The lens has nylon rollers which engage in slots in the lens barrel and all you need is for these to dis-engage for your day to be ruined. Go easy with the lens, turn the focal length ring especially slowly and positively.

 

Hi Mark

What you say - it's fine, but needs treating with care.

 

Have you taken one to bits? Got the pictures?