DaveO Posted June 30, 2010 Share #1 Posted June 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do these abbreviations mean? DaveO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Hi DaveO, Take a look here MATE and WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ianman Posted June 30, 2010 Share #2 Posted June 30, 2010 Medium Angle Tri Elmar Wide Angle Tri Elmar Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted June 30, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted June 30, 2010 Thanks for the answer. I never would have figured it out. DaveO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 30, 2010 Share #4 Posted June 30, 2010 The two variable-focal-length lenses produced for the Leica M series. MATE (out of production) is 28-35-50, WATE (still produced) is 16-18-21mm. Officially, both are just "Tri-Elmar-M" lenses - the abbreviations are creations of the Internet to distinguish between them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted June 30, 2010 Share #5 Posted June 30, 2010 Some of us would like to see Leica revisit the MATE concept... very useful when travelling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 30, 2010 Share #6 Posted June 30, 2010 I bet they would sell a lot more MATE Mk3's than 21 or 24 Summiluxes. Perhaps it is the thought of the warranty claims that is putting them off. OTOH, I am sure that the optics if not the mechanics of the MATE could be simplified, with hopefully a small improvement on the 28mm length, which is not quite to Leica standards. I posted on another thread that I would be very happy with a Bi-Elmar of 28-50, if they could get it to f2.8 and retain the current size. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted June 30, 2010 Share #7 Posted June 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some of us would like to see Leica revisit the MATE concept... very useful when travelling. I agree. With the improved high ISO performance of the M9 the slow speed of the MATE is less of an issue than it was. Reduced frequency of lens changes means less dust. Would be good for travel, as you say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. white Posted June 30, 2010 Share #8 Posted June 30, 2010 Some of us would like to see Leica revisit the MATE concept... very useful when travelling. Count me in among this group. Having owned the original version, I would put in for two changes: 1) Keep the ergonomic changes added to the second version of the lens, particularly the stiffer rotation of the focal length ring. 2) This one is more controversial: make it a 35-50-75. Certainly this choice of focal lengths is not as popular as the 20 - 50 spread. However it might remove some of the complexity of the mount due to simpler frameline activation. -J. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 1, 2010 Share #9 Posted July 1, 2010 Some of us would like to see Leica revisit the MATE concept... very useful when travelling. I agree with Mark. This is handy when you travel like me I bet they would sell a lot more MATE Mk3's than 21 or 24 Summiluxes. Perhaps it is the thought of the warranty claims that is putting them off. OTOH, I am sure that the optics if not the mechanics of the MATE could be simplified, with hopefully a small improvement on the 28mm length, which is not quite to Leica standards. I posted on another thread that I would be very happy with a Bi-Elmar of 28-50, if they could get it to f2.8 and retain the current size.Wilson As I said to Wilson on another thread about dust * a single lens with different focal lengths from 28 to 50mm (or 35-75mm) is very useful and take up less space. But more importantly,it avoids changing like me with my lux 35mm or 50mm or cron 28mm ....trap dust especially when it is on dirt roads (red laterite in SE Asia) Too bad that Leica has stopped production of the Mate Regards Henry *http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130337-thank-you-leica-no-thank-you.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted July 1, 2010 Share #10 Posted July 1, 2010 I am sure that the optics... of the MATE could be simplified, ... I doubt that. The MATE had 8 lens elements, which is not much for a lens covering 28 - 50 mm. There are many fixed focal length lenses in the Leica lineup having 7 or 8 lens elements, albeit of higher speed, but still. BTW, I do not find the 28mm setting of the MATE to be somewhat below current Leica standards. While there may be a little more distortion at that setting, the rendering is very crisp and contrasty right to the edges. Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted July 1, 2010 Share #11 Posted July 1, 2010 I'd like to see a new MATE as well. Still, my version 2 does a very good job - I'm quite happy with f4 (wouldn't want it any bigger). I'd like a new version to focus a bit closer - the 1m limit can be quite a shortcoming, but perhaps that's just me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 1, 2010 Share #12 Posted July 1, 2010 I doubt that. The MATE had 8 lens elements, which is not much for a lens covering 28 - 50 mm. There are many fixed focal length lenses in the Leica lineup having 7 or 8 lens elements, albeit of higher speed, but still. BTW, I do not find the 28mm setting of the MATE to be somewhat below current Leica standards. While there may be a little more distortion at that setting, the rendering is very crisp and contrasty right to the edges. Andy Andy I was not thinking so much about the number of elements, I was thinking more about less dancing when they are moved about between focal lengths. The WATE is technically a zoom and other than the frame changes, I am sure a 28-35-50 could be nowadays as well. Now it might mean that the 28 and 35 are f 2.8 with the 50 at F3.5 but that could be lived with. Now I know that Zooms are not Leica's "thing" but they could always ask Zeiss, who get them nearer perfect than anyone else ;-]] Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted July 1, 2010 Share #13 Posted July 1, 2010 I bet they would sell a lot more MATE Mk3's than 21 or 24 Summiluxes. Perhaps it is the thought of the warranty claims that is putting them off. OTOH, I am sure that the optics if not the mechanics of the MATE could be simplified, with hopefully a small improvement on the 28mm length, which is not quite to Leica standards. I posted on another thread that I would be very happy with a Bi-Elmar of 28-50, if they could get it to f2.8 and retain the current size. Wilson My MATE is probably my most used lens nowadays. Looking forward to using it at Goodwood tomorrow! Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted July 1, 2010 Share #14 Posted July 1, 2010 The WATE is technically a zoom and other than the frame changes, I am sure a 28-35-50 could be nowadays as well. ] Wilson Guess it would have to be a 28-35-50, vs. the current 28-50-35 of its current configuration if it were to be a "zoom" like the WATE. On more reflection, it would probably be more effective in the sequential configuration, zoom or not- I for one would appreciate it. A 35-75 sure sounds sweet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 2, 2010 Share #15 Posted July 2, 2010 New MATE - yes please, Ver.2 size ! It would need to be re-computed as the glass for one element is no longer available, but it is a supremely useful travel lens at 28-35-50. It would be pricey though! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 2, 2010 Share #16 Posted July 2, 2010 New MATE - yes please, Ver.2 size ! It would need to be re-computed as the glass for one element is no longer available, but it is a supremely useful travel lens at 28-35-50. It would be pricey though! My guess would be around the same price as the 21/24 Summiluxes, which even thought they are much more specialised, are selling in reasonable numbers according to my dealer. I am certain that between Zeiss-Schott, Hoya and Dow Corning, one of them could replicate the glass, which I think used to be made by Leica themselves, when they still had a glass plant. It really needs recomputing anyway, so it is probably a non-issue. Has anyone actually asked Stefan "why no new MATE?" My guess at present is that the lens teams are all beavering away at S lenses. I believe that Jonathan Ive, the design director of Apple, uses a MATE on his Leica M's, which he says are the inspiration behind the design of the iPhone 4 - hmmmmm. At least an M9 works when you hold it in your left hand. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted July 2, 2010 Share #17 Posted July 2, 2010 I don`t know who actually made the glass, but the front lens element was initially made by Hoya in Japan. When they no longer wanted to do this, Leica switched supply to another Japanese company, but then quality was apparently not as good as before. Stefan Daniel told us during a Forum Meeting that they were not too sad to see this lens go as it was complex and costly to make and profit margins were small. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 2, 2010 Share #18 Posted July 2, 2010 I don`t know who actually made the glass, but the front lens element was initially made by Hoya in Japan. When they no longer wanted to do this, Leica switched supply to another Japanese company, but then quality was apparently not as good as before. Stefan Daniel told us during a Forum Meeting that they were not too sad to see this lens go as it was complex and costly to make and profit margins were small. Customer satisfaction might be a good reason to resurrect it. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 2, 2010 Share #19 Posted July 2, 2010 <snip> Stefan Daniel told us during a Forum Meeting that they were not too sad to see this lens go as it was complex and costly to make and profit margins were small. Well they need to charge more for it then! And they are still producing the WATE, which surely has virtually the same mechanicals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted July 2, 2010 Share #20 Posted July 2, 2010 Well they need to charge more for it then! And they are still producing the WATE, which surely has virtually the same mechanicals. No, the WATE is much simpler mechanically as there are no framelines to move. 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.