MATE and WATE

[frank_dernie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, the WATE is much simpler mechanically as there are no framelines to move.

 

Not only that, but the focal length goes 28-50-35 because of the frameline cam movement, which means the almost-zoom mechanism is complex.

FWIW for this reason the MATE had to have discreet focal lengths of 28, 35 and 50 whereas the WATE is a zoom with smooth change of focal length from 16-21, though the framelines in the finder are available for 16, 18 and 21.

Perhaps if there is another MATE it will be a zoom too, with simpler mechanism for changing focal length but more complex one changing the framelines???

Frank

[Advertisement]

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

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Leica cannot make the M9 fast enough - commercial success

Don't think they has enough people buy the 'zooms' - failure

 

Leica can only afford to make a profit, People who buy Cosina lenses instead hurt Leicas bottom line.

 

Noel

[wda]

While I share the enthusiasm for the MATE, there would be no point in reintroducing the lens unless the performance of the 28mm setting is brought up to Leica fixed focal length standards.

[steve kessel]

Where can I find a MATE?

[Ivar B]

Where can I find a MATE?

 

You find them on eBay all the time.

[wlaidlaw]

Where can I find a MATE?

 

Steve,

 

If you are looking for a MATE, may I recommend that you wait to find a version 2. The frame change and focal length mechanisms of the version 1 are even more fragile and prone to go out of adjustment than the version 2. You will probably have to budget for a trip to Leica about every 4 to 5 years for a mechanical service. I don't know if they are optically identical but I am guessing yes or only marginally different. The filter/hood arrangement is also better on the V2. The lens cap from Leica is a waste of space, as it is virtually impossible to mount and remove with the hood mounted. Hoya make a good replacement with finger tabs at the front rather than at the edges. To give you an idea of size, here is a pic of a V2 on an M9 and yes I too have noticed it is set between focal lengths on this shot ;-}} FYI, it does fit in the Leica neoprene case with the long nose front - just!

 

Wilson

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!

[Lucklik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to like the MATE the optical performance is good. I read some people complain about the performance at 28mm. For me that is not a problem. Without a tripod it is very difficult to exploit the full potential of a Leica lens. In reportage photography it will be hard to tell the diffence between the MATE and the prime lenses.

What I don't like is the flare I sometimes geet at 50mm.

Does the lenshood solves this problem?

[wlaidlaw]

What I don't like is the flare I sometimes geet at 50mm.

Does the lenshood solves this problem?

 

Pretty much. It is at least as flare resistant as the 35 ASPH Summilux. When I use it on my M8 rather than M9 and have a UV/IR filter on, you have to be careful to avoid pink circles, especially on "contre jour" shots.

 

Wilson

[wattsy]

I owned the version two 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar long before the advent of the M8/9 (and the ability to switch ISO on the fly to 640/1250). I wouldn't find the F4 quite so limiting nowadays but I know that I would still hate the ergonomics of the thing.

[kkochheiser]

A dumb question here: How do I tell the difference between a v.1, 2 or 3 MATE? When I look on ebay I see a difference in filter size but rarely see one described by version number. Yes, I did a search and learned a lot but not this!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Kent

[gravastar]

A dumb question here: How do I tell the difference between a v.1, 2 or 3 MATE? When I look on ebay I see a difference in filter size but rarely see one described by version number. Yes, I did a search and learned a lot but not this!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Kent

The second generation version has multiple "stepped" depth of field scales around the barrel. Optically both generations are the same but the mechanics of the second version were significantly improved. The first generation takes 55mm filters and the same large hood as the 21/24 2.8 ASPH, second generation uses 49mm filters and a reversible hood with cut outs and a push on cap. AFAIK there are only two versions of the lens.

 

ETA: The second version has a focus tab, I don't think the earlier one has this. Someone please correct this if it's wrong, it's some time since I had a first version which I exchanged for the later one.

 

Bob.

[kkochheiser]

Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

 

Kent

[Lucklik]

Pretty much. It is at least as flare resistant as the 35 ASPH Summilux. When I use it on my M8 rather than M9 and have a UV/IR filter on, you have to be careful to avoid pink circles, especially on "contre jour" shots.

 

Wilson

 

Tnx 4 your answer regarding the lenshood on the MATE.

I'll hope they are still available.

 

rgs

 

Luc

[wlaidlaw]

Tnx 4 your answer regarding the lenshood on the MATE.

I'll hope they are still available.

 

rgs

 

Luc

 

Luc,

 

FYI, the Leica part no is 12450.

 

Wilson

[Lucklik]

Luc,

 

FYI, the Leica part no is 12450.

 

Wilson

 

My dealer said it was not available anymore

rgs

Luc

[stunsworth]

The main problem I had was with the aperture ring losing its indents. That happened around 3-4 times in the 8 years or so I had the lens. I've heard of other people having the same problem.

[lars_bergquist]

The fact that the MATE had to actuate the framelines, which follow the sequence 35--50--28, meant that the mount mechanics were a nightmare to design, and pure hell to manufacture. The mount redesign had not only to do with its tendecy to dissassemble spontaneously, but also to unreliable frame line change. I do suspect that when Hoya furnished Leica with a pretext to discontinue the lens, a faint collective sigh of relief was heard in Solms.

 

So a repeat performance is a bit unlikely, I think. About on a level with a resurrected Visoflex ...

 

The old man from the Age of Prime Lenses

[jonoslack]

The fact that the MATE had to actuate the framelines, which follow the sequence 35--50--28, meant that the mount mechanics were a nightmare to design, and pure hell to manufacture. The mount redesign had not only to do with its tendecy to dissassemble spontaneously, but also to unreliable frame line change. I do suspect that when Hoya furnished Leica with a pretext to discontinue the lens, a faint collective sigh of relief was heard in Solms.

 

So a repeat performance is a bit unlikely, I think. About on a level with a resurrected Visoflex ...

 

The old man from the Age of Prime Lenses

 

Hi Lars

I wonder whether with the lens coding available now, it wouldn't be possible to do something along the lines of the WATE (i.e. a 'true zoom' rather than 3 lenses in one).

I'm sure they recognise the market is there.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SJP]

Conceivibly they could make a 28-50 mm zoom (with indents, similar to WATE) and have a manual frameline selection ring on the lens barrel. In other words drop the automatic coupling of the MATE. This would simplify the mechanics considerably (and reduce the price).

 

If you switched focal length and forgot to also change the frameline selector then I guess it would only mess up the exif (and IR filter correction on the M8), this would be irritating but would not impact on the image quality very much.

 

When using my MATE if often keep at one focal length for an extended period of time. Frequent focal length changes makes composition harder to (pre)visualise.