spylaw4 Posted January 20, 2010 Share #21 Â Posted January 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great image - I understood that they discontinued it because it was simply too expensive to make . . . which is rather borne out by this picture! Â They are however simply making the WATE version of it to this day! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 Hi spylaw4, Take a look here Seeking opinion on MATE Tri-Elmar on M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ashwinrao1 Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share #22 Â Posted January 20, 2010 Fair enough. I will be gentle, though I wasn't implying that I was going nuts on the focal length barrels or anything .... Â The issue seems to be a bit inconsistent. Sometimes it happens, and others it doesn't. Basically, the solution is easy. Turn from 28 to just past 50 mm, then back to 50, and the proper framelines lock in! Â As for the cut through image, wow, that's impressively complicated. I am curious how different a similar image of the WATE is, and whether a f/u to the MATE tri-elmar will ever be in the works, given that the 3 focal lengths are imminently useful on the M9. Â I think Stefan Daniel gave an ambivalent response when asked, but that's just a vague recollection! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 20, 2010 Share #23 Â Posted January 20, 2010 They are however simply making the WATE version of it to this day! Â The WATE is somewhat simpler mechanically than the MATE, not just because of the smaller zoom ratio (a paltry 1.3:1) but also because Leica chickened out coupling the focal length to the camera. It was also said that supplies of the glass for the front lens element ended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 20, 2010 Share #24 Â Posted January 20, 2010 Have you taken one to bits? Got the pictures? Â Jono, no, I don't do lenses, seems to require different synaptic gap wiring. I took the mount of an old Summilux apart once (the one where the barrel can be unscrewed intact) and it took for ever to get the thing right with the multi-start threads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 20, 2010 Share #25 Â Posted January 20, 2010 Beg, borrow or steal (well maybe not that far) to get a MATE. It is fabulous on the M9 and even better on it than on an M8. Go for the V2 version, as it has a bit more robust mount, which is the weak point of the MATE. It is not a small lens but no bigger than a zoom on a DSLR. I find it astonishing that Leica has not released an updated version. Â Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted January 20, 2010 Share #26 Â Posted January 20, 2010 I have been using the MATE (version 1)Tri-Elmar on my M9 (and M8) extensively, and am very happy with the results. On a recent mediterranean trip ( Turkey, Israel, Cyprus, Egypt, Tunisia, Crete,Spain ), I travelled with the MATE Tri-Elmar on an M9, and the 90 f2.8 elmarit on an M8, and never changed lenses ( had the WATE, and 50 Summilux with me ). Since the M9 sensor is somewhat of a dust magnet, I appreciated reducing those opportunities, and it was convenient always (well mostly) to have the right focal length. Â The lens barrel sheilds a heavily recessed front element, and I do not use a separate shade. I do use a UV filter. Â The MATE was recently in Solms (last year ) for CLA and encoding. Â I also have the problem of jiggling to get the right frame lines, but have got used to it. Since the optical performance is excellent, and focus is right on, I am reluctant to have anyone fool with it. Â One reason the MATE is so complex, is that it actually is three discrete focal lengths, where the WATE is really a zoom lens with indents which is probably a simpler design. Â If Leica re-introduces the MATE it will most likely be like the WATE, a zoom lens with indents. A 2-1 (28-50) f4 zoom is not an optical challenge today. Â Scalable finder frames to account for focusing frame size changes would also be nice one day. Â Regards ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted January 22, 2010 Share #27  Posted January 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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  I regularly have the issue of funky (multiple) frames showing up on my M8. I find that a quick flick on the frame selector lever pushes the frame to its correct position.  I also have found that it is easy for the focal length selector ring to rest just outside the proper notch when at 50mm ...you need to slowly "feel" that it has lodged in the right place.  I have never moved the focus selection very quickly as I prefer a smooth transition...seems that this was a correct decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted January 25, 2010 Share #28 Â Posted January 25, 2010 I had a ver. 2 for about 2 yrs and sold it (used on M6 & 4). Very heavy and too slow in the f: dept. Â Also, took me out of my style of Leica shooting - which is, if on the street, using one lens all day - maybe one other in a pocket depending on location and weather. Keep it simple. Â Bottom line for me: heavy and slow. Â If you need a zoom - DSLR. The G11 is sweet for its size... and if your careful, good enough for exhibition in RAW. Â The Tri is cool - but after the gee whiz wore off... it was gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.