johnbuckley Posted January 6, 2012 Share #41 Â Posted January 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The MATE is an ideal lens for a weekend's trip to a big city -- a near perfect complement to the unobtrusiveness of the M9. Â It is a near perfect lens for hiking in desert regions where you don't want to expose the sensor by changing lenses. Â It is a really nice lens to have for going to your child's school performance where you don't want to be the show off changing lenses every two minutes. (Sit close!) Â It is a good lens when on vacation and you have to go on a boat somewhere and you don't want to risk dropping your fine primes. Â So, IMHO, it's a terrific lens for certain situations. Â However, it is slow and not as sharp as primes are. So if you have to choose between it and the prime of your dreams, go for the prime. But if you have the luxury of keeping a limited situation lens, I have found it really does fill a gap, and have used it in all the above referenced situations, happily. I'm keeping mine. For now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Hi johnbuckley, Take a look here Should I sell my MATE?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
freusen Posted January 7, 2012 Share #42  Posted January 7, 2012 I sold mine 4 years ago (Mk 2 3E) and I don’t regret it. I’ve moved to shooting almost exclusively primes on my Ms and Rs. The F4 aperture was too slow for me, as I shoot a lot of low light pictures. Maybe I should have kept it and sold it now as I would have sold it for twice as much. C’est la vie!  The MATE was the lens I used the most untill I sold it 2 years ago (chrome Mk1). The f4.0 aperture was too slow for me and took always a 35mm Summilux with me. I had a 50mm Summicron, a 35mm Summilux for available light conditions (indoors) and bought a 28mm Summicron and don’t regret it. Often I take only the 28mm with me, it's an amazing lens and fits me better. ___________ Frank R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 9, 2012 Share #43 Â Posted January 9, 2012 When I was 18 years old and in the US Navy I saved my money and bought a 3.5 Rolloflex and kept it till I was married. During my working career I had no camera as I was too busy working and photography was not very important to me. However when I retired at age 66 I bought a Nikon D2, and then a D2X, when Nikon released the D3 I immediately sold my D2's and bought the D3 which by the way I still have. As I got older I bought a Leica M9 as the D3 with a lens was getting way too heavy for me. I recently bought a Mate (type I) to take on a 70 day cruise with my wife to celebrate our 60th wedding anniversary. I guess I took over 1500 pictures and have them saved on a 50 gig disk. I was really surprised how well they came out as I am by far no expert. I have sent my M9, Nocti, and the Mate to Leica N.J. to be better fitted. Since sending my equipment to Leica New Jersey I bought a Mate series II and should be receiving it this week sometime. I don't know why I bought the series II when the pictures came out so well with the series I Mate. I guess now I'll have to send the new Mate and my M9 back to NJ again. I have read all the forgoing posts here stating that most buyers eventually sold their Mates because it was too slow at f/4 for them. I agree it is slow but, in the daytime out doors it suits me just fine. BTW on my cruise I brought my Nocti and several other lens so as to be able to click indoors. In a month I'll be 80 years old and probably won't live to see Leica produce a faster Mate. I apologize for running on about the Mate because I'm sure most of you already know about its capabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 10, 2012 Share #44 Â Posted January 10, 2012 I LOVE my ver.3 MATE and would NEVER part with it unless of course Leica comes out with a ver.4 that is optically superior and/or has a faster f/stop. Out doors its my most used lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 10, 2012 Share #45 Â Posted January 10, 2012 So to answer your original question. Yes, to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 10, 2012 Share #46 Â Posted January 10, 2012 I LOVE my ver.3 MATE and would NEVER part with it..... This must be a very rare lens because I cannot find it listed anywhere. What distinguishes it from the Version 2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 10, 2012 Share #47 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This must be a very rare lens because I cannot find it listed anywhere. What distinguishes it from the Version 2? Â Good point. How many versions are there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 10, 2012 Share #48 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Their are three versions. The first its the worst of the three. It has sharpness issues at 50mm. The second version had the sharpness solved but some of its internal surfaces are uncoated that may cause flair and such. The final and third version has had all of these issues addressed. The first version is easy to identify it has a 55mm thread size for filters. Version two is a little harder to identify. Both it and version three use 49mm filters. You need to check the serial numbers. Their are several different sources I'm not one of them. Before you buy a used MATE just ask what version it is. If they don't know then don't buy from them and If they do know then you'll know. Â Try to locate Erwin Putts' "Lens Compendium", once you read what he has to say about the Tri-Elmar you may want one to. Â PM me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted January 10, 2012 Share #49 Â Posted January 10, 2012 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/28mm-35mm-50mm_f/4_ASPH_Tri-Elmar-M Â Do not underestimate the resources of this forum... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #50 Â Posted January 10, 2012 I just broke out my copy of Leica Lens Compendium and Leica Compendium (both 1st editions). Mr. Puts only mentions two versions of the MATE, and says that both have the same optical cell. But does give high recommendations (which I second) for it's overall quality. Â Please provide more information, as I have a late edition MATE, and would like to place it. Â According to the Wiki entry I have the ^ version, whatever that means, but it's higher than the 38966 mentioned in the entry. The Wiki entry does not mention what was the difference in design is, just a change in design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #51 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Swamiji, What is your serial number??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #52 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Swamiji, What is your serial number??? Â 3896703 Â I just checked my copy of puts pocket guide, and this serial number range is omitted. Maybe it doesn't exist? A new type of optical illusion... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #53 Â Posted January 10, 2012 On the front lens edge does it say E55 or E49??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #54 Â Posted January 10, 2012 On the lens edge does it say E55 or E49??? Â Oh, defiantly E49. I guess the question is wether it's a "Redesign" or regular E49... Then next entry in the pocket guide is for "Redesign" and the previous is not. But since this Wiki, with out supporting documentation it is questionable. Â Since our esteemed colleague billib has said there are three versions, and the Wiki does imply it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 10, 2012 Share #55  Posted January 10, 2012 I just broke out my copy of Leica Lens Compendium and Leica Compendium (both 1st editions). Mr. Puts only mentions two versions of the MATE, and says that both have the same optical cell. But does give high recommendations (which I second) for it's overall quality. Please provide more information, as I have a late edition MATE, and would like to place it.  According to the Wiki entry I have the ^ version, whatever that means, but it's higher than the 38966 mentioned in the entry. The Wiki entry does not mention what was the difference in design is, just a change in design. I have the newest compendium downloaded recently. Erwin mentions the new version shown a Photokina 2000. The last and 3rd version was released in 2001 if I'm not mistaken. That would mean the lens shown at Photokina was version 3. He also doesn't mention the internal differences of the three versions. I must have read it on his web site. I certainly didn't make them up, I wouldn't know anything about the internal differences of these lenses.  Page 120 through 122 in Erwins compendium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 10, 2012 Share #56 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Their are three versions. The first its the worst of the three.It has sharpness issues at 50mm. .... If there are sharpness issues at the 50mm setting, then there is a problem with that particular specimen. It is generally recognized that at the 35 and 50mm settings, the performance is indistinguishable from almost all primes when operated at f/5.6-8. It is a different matter with the 28mm which, sadly, does not compare so well when compared to the aforementioned focal lengths. The reduced performance is only apparent when large prints are made (>A4) or files are compared on a good graphics monitor at 100%. To an extent this lower level of sharpness can be offset by skilful post processing, but it is hardly comparable with current 28mm primes. Â I believe the confusion regarding versions arises because the lens hood is slightly different at the end of the lens production run. I don't know why and it certainly does not reflect on the performance of the MATE which remains a most remarkable and useful lens for many popular applications. As far as I know there are only two part numbers for the two versions of the MATE. I am still doubtful that an official third version exists. Â I am amazed how well the MATE performs even at full aperture when I occasionally use it indoors in poor light. The digital M cameras have the advantage over film in that a higher ISO can be chosen in extremis. For many practical purposes, the MATE is more versatile than many people believe. I am very pleased and proud to be an owner and would not consider parting with mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #57 Â Posted January 10, 2012 Please note E Putts states that there are only 2 types. I and II no III type. Mr Putts please respond to this thread, please clear this up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #58 Â Posted January 10, 2012 I have the newest compendium downloaded recently.Erwin mentions the new version shown a Photokina 2000. The last and 3rd version was released in 2001 if I'm not mistaken. That would mean the lens shown at Photokina was version 3. He also doesn't mention the internal differences of the three versions. I must have read it on his web site. I certainly didn't make them up, I wouldn't know anything about the internal differences of these lenses. Â I have never thought you had, I just want to know more about the MATE. Mine is not even listed in Puts pocket guide. I went to his website and he does not mention versions in his write up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 10, 2012 Share #59 Â Posted January 10, 2012 My list of serial numbers aren't that clear. Thats why I recommend a potential buyer ask. Â It appears that Version 1 was introduced in 1996. ver.2 in 1999 and ver.3 in 2001. Like I said its not clear so I could easily be wrong. It would be great if a clear list could be found but I don't think one exists or rather the list I have isn't clear to me. Â I would post the list but I suspect its copy righted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #60 Â Posted January 10, 2012 David, three cheers for your last post here re: the Mate, I agree with your statement and Erwin Putts that there are only two types the E55 and the E49 versions. As far as the sun shades that only makes the sun shade to have two versions not the lens E49 type. Someone should find E Putts and ask him to post here and clear up this once and for all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.