thighslapper Posted January 7, 2013 Share #141 Posted January 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) addendum.... I have emailed Tim Davis (who produced this Wiki entry) and asked where he got the info that the 'redesign' referred specifically to the mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here Should I sell my MATE?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tdavis Posted January 7, 2013 Share #142 Posted January 7, 2013 Hi Steve, I'm a retired architect with little to do except for 3 fun projects: documenting the known butterflies of Austin, Texas; finding all my family tree; and the Leicawiki. The first is mostly done; the 2nd is reaching completion; which leaves some time for the 3rd . . . Using the wiki 'history' feature I added the line about the 3rd version 4 Jun 2012: *'''Variants''' - E55 1st version; Body change 2nd version E49-A53, "Improved Mount Redesign" E49-A53 3rd version after Serial No. 3507451 - Black and Chrome versions (black lens shown on left is the E49-A53 version) Almost always my 'source' is something mentioned in a 'Forum discussion', as my Leica knowledge is somewhat limited (starting from zero when my kind wife bought me a Clux camera in 2008). Now the simple task for us is to find a relevant Forum discussion item on or before June 4th. I'll get back, if I get there first . . . Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdavis Posted January 7, 2013 Share #143 Posted January 7, 2013 Wrong. It wasn't the Forum as source. Steve Huff was the culprit: Tri Elmar | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Sorry, for the circular info. On reading more carefully, I find Steve is quoting our wiki! Here is another quote: MATE Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 - Leica User Forum Source still not found :-( . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdavis Posted January 7, 2013 Share #144 Posted January 7, 2013 Saga continues w/ Google translation of Forum member Der Hexar : <Maybe even some Fundamental to this objective, with the I photograph a lot. The improvements in particular the 3rd Version does not refer only to mechanical improvements but on optical. It has been found that the lens has 50mm significant position in the "Flare" (flare) - and not only in direct backlight. Thereupon, the Leica lens edges and the part towards innwandigen bayonet again ablackiert additionally black. It reduces the fine but is still clearly visible. In response I received from Leica, that the signal for the 50mm would be too long and as a result always shows this phenomenon. Also, the supplied lens hood can help him, because that is designed for the 28mm. So with a longer 49mm threaded use, or you have to live with this drawback. What has irritated me with this lens but a lot more and I got to read about it so far nothing is the fact that not specified focal lengths correspond to the actual. Imagine the M9 one on a tripod and at 50mm focal length, look through the bright line frames and release the shutter. Then one looks at the image on the display results and notes: The picture is much more to see (about 10%), as you could see by the light frame. Thus natrürlich accurate image composition is no longer given. But Thanks to digital technology, you can fix this so afterwards and it is still better than to have too small a picture Section. The whole thing has nothing to do with the rangefinder or parallax! Even the Leica CS had no answer - until I met on the PK S. Daniel, who gave me a 50mm Summicron and asked me to repeat the test again. Lo and behold, the picture was consistent with the viewfinder frame are almost identical. S. Daniel smiled and explained to me that maps the MATE just any 50mm focal length but a smaller focal length with estimated 43mm - 45mm. This "focal reduction" also affects the other two focal lengths of the lens to a similar degree.> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 7, 2013 Share #145 Posted January 7, 2013 From photonet ..... this is obviously not new..... and this quote makes things even more puzzling..... Jay 66 , Nov 27, 2009; 12:13 a.m. I've been using the second version 3E as the staple in my traveling kit since it was introduced. A really great travel lens, if you don't mind the slowness of f/4. A shame it was discontinued. They are not cheap on the used market by any means. 3E ???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 7, 2013 Share #146 Posted January 7, 2013 3E???? See? That's why I detest this abbreviationitis. I could tell you what 3E means but I won't. Good luck finding out yourself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 7, 2013 Share #147 Posted January 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks guys for contributing to this thread with your additional information, please keep it going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 7, 2013 Share #148 Posted January 7, 2013 See? That's why I detest this abbreviationitis. I could tell you what 3E means but I won't. Good luck finding out yourself This is becoming like the "where in the world" thread in the photo forum.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 7, 2013 Share #149 Posted January 7, 2013 Duh..... Tri-Elmar ....... Well you can see how these things can become self replicating like viruses.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdavis Posted January 8, 2013 Share #150 Posted January 8, 2013 Has anyone noticed the serial no. in Leicawiki and copied in numerous Steve Huff posts /Rangefinder Forum etc. makes no sense? The quote is "Improved Mount Redesign" E49-A53 3rd version after Serial No. 3507451. ALL Tri-Elmar MATEs are after 3507451 because the 1st one issued was 3753126 , in 1996, from Puts Pocket Pod and Leicawiki - Batch 3507451to 350763021mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M - 1990180 lenses Sure wish I knew where "Improved Mount Redesign" came from. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 8, 2013 Share #151 Posted January 8, 2013 As said before, Puts list alludes to a 'redesign' in 2001 from serial no. 3920101 onwards. That is all the information I can find. He just copied the lists from the Leica factory archives. Everything else surrounding this appears to be conjecture and nothing directly attributable to a reliable source seems to exist. From info in his books Puts dates the change from E55 to E49 at 2000 ....... and there are 3 batches of allocated serial numbers listed ..... 74, 1 and 500 ... with a gap 'frei' of 75 between the 74 &1.... which is a bit odd. This reverts to the previous pattern of 1000 allocated numbers ....... with the appended 'redesign' in the list for 2001 Remember..... these are RESERVED SERIAL NUMBERS, not the actual numbers of lenses produced.... I think a more sensible explanation is that 'redesign' in the factory list refers to the change from E55 to E49 and that the allocated numbers from then onwards reflect the new version. 2000 would have been a transitional year with some of the serial numbers possibly allocated to the old E55 run and some to the new E49 model ....... my E49 lens is 3892223 which is one of the last few in the final 500 batch from 2000. There is no particular reason to change the allocated serial numbers just because the lens has been modified. Once to old allocated numbers were used up the new allocation required was listed in the records as for the 'Tri-Elm.28-35-50 Redes.' There must be comparably few E49's about ....... the factory list suggests fewer than 2000 as production stopped at just about the date when his factory lists finishes (in fact they had no need to allocate further numbers after 2002.... ) and this is borne out by the dearth of these on the second hand market. Stan ...... you win a coconut ..... I think the mythical V3 is the result of misinterpretation of the rather sparse information available..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 8, 2013 Share #152 Posted January 8, 2013 .... Puts also states that the E49 version appeared at Photokina 2000, which was 25th Sept that year. In true Leica fashion I suspect production lagged behind appearance and that it was only available in 2001 .... hence the 'Tri-elmar M redesign' appearing in the records for 2001. ..... as a corollary it makes it almost impossible to be sure of the age of any E49 version of this lens ..... all the future serial numbers were allocated by at the latest 2002 .... and even these would only have been used if all the 2001 allocation had gone. This lens was still on the shelves in 2006/7, and it's anyones guess how often batches of this lens were made and in what numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted January 9, 2013 Share #153 Posted January 9, 2013 Thighslapper, my E49 begins 3892 I believe so that means it was made close to yours and certainly before 39x as you say Erwin says Stan, sent mine to Leica for 6 bit coding and 50mm flare fixing. Sent pics to demonstrate. They said they added black paint inside to reduce the flare and indeed it was almost two years later last month that I got some in Solvang, California. So if mine was not Ver3 before assume it is now:D Seems like perhaps only 2,500 E49s were made out of 8,500, partially explaining why only E55s for sale on eBay now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 9, 2013 Share #154 Posted January 9, 2013 Seems like perhaps only 2,500 E49s were made out of 8,500, partially explaining why only E55s for sale on eBay now. As we don't know how many of the 2000+ allocated serial numbers were used, I suspect it is significantly less than this. Assuming all the pre E49 numbers were used up you can make a good stab at E55 production, but not the E49 output. I have no figures, but presumably when new it was quite pricey and would have been a low volume seller. I collect limited edition etchings from the 1920's-30's and there are similar problems ....... editions are often stated as 50, 60 or 100, but artists often printed as required or only signed and numbered prints as they were sold. The printed remainder often languished unsold and were lost. I have prints signed by the artist 30 years after he originally printed them. As a result, from an alleged edition of 100 there may only be a handful of prints in existence and finding a copy almost impossible..... The situation with Leicas 'serial number reservation' system can cause similar issues in both estimating actual production and year of manufacture....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted January 9, 2013 Share #155 Posted January 9, 2013 Thighslapper agree with all your observations in post #151. My serial number is 3896837 suggesting made in second 2000 batch confirming your premise 2000 was a transitional year with all redesigns from 2001 on. Since 2,000 were allocated after the year 2000 the maximum E49s may be 2,500 but also quite likely in the neighborhood. As for price, in 2005 Tri-Elmar went for $3,500. 75 Lux went for $3,600, so these were the two most expensive at the time. These prices were provided by Leica which I reported in another thread recently. Finally agree with your use as a travel lens or the one for a day trip in good light which we get often in South Florida. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 9, 2013 Share #156 Posted January 9, 2013 ... ALL Tri-Elmar MATEs are after 3507451 because the 1st one issued was 3753126 , in 1996, ... Correct. And Puts Book "Leica Lenses" shows on its cover a MATE version II having a serial number of 37xxxxx (can't remember exactly), which means that there cannot be too many version I around if version II started this early. In my view, the MATE was always a slow seller, so total production numbers should be quite low. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 9, 2013 Share #157 Posted January 9, 2013 Correct. And Puts Book "Leica Lenses" shows on its cover a MATE version II having a serial number of 37xxxxx (can't remember exactly), which means that there cannot be too many version I around if version II started this early. In my view, the MATE was always a slow seller, so total production numbers should be quite low. Andy If you mean the silver lens on the cover it looks like a V1 E55 to me ..... you can tell very easily by the flared end .... the E49 is flush with the barrel... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 17, 2013 Share #158 Posted January 17, 2013 Billib, Tri, after reading both of your posts I must say as a owner of both version 1 and 2 that we have to except the fact that there are only two versions. E Puts is the leading Leica lens expert and he states that there are only two versions. However if someone was to describe his/her version as the latest version of the Mate (version 2) I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. So be it. Lets not end this most interesting commentary on this most useful dinosaur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 17, 2013 Share #159 Posted January 17, 2013 So be it. Lets not end this most interesting commentary on this most useful dinosaur. I assume you are referring to the lens..... and not yourself..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 17, 2013 Share #160 Posted January 17, 2013 theighslapper, I like your sense of humor??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.