swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #61 Posted January 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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.. The hood is an accessory, purchased separately. Part number 12450 The Wiki has some discrepancies. It says "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)" The first Tri-Elmar has a serial number of 3753126, which means all Tri-Elmars are 3rd version... Which adds to the confusion. The Wiki also says "(batch 3896051-3897500 is missing)" All I can say is, I have one. Where the rest of the batch went I cannot say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Hi swamiji, Take a look here Should I sell my MATE?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #62 Posted January 10, 2012 Someone please contact Erwin Putts and let him put this to sleep. Forum monitor please contact E.P. and clear this up once and for all, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted January 10, 2012 Share #63 Posted January 10, 2012 Someone please contact Erwin Putts and let him ... clear this up once and for all, please. Since you talked about >>spelling<< furher up, stanjan: perhaps you should not continue to call him >>Putts<<, he might not listen to you. It´s >>PUTS<<. best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted January 10, 2012 Share #64 Posted January 10, 2012 The Wiki has some discrepancies. It says "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)" The first Tri-Elmar has a serial number of 3753126, which means all Tri-Elmars are 3rd version... Which adds to the confusion. I believe this is a mistake in the Wiki. The Wiki also says "(batch 3896051-3897500 is missing)" All I can say is, I have one. Where the rest of the batch went I cannot say. I have one too... The "Redesigned" mention appears from S/N 3920101. This "could" indeed mean V3 (interesting - always thought there were only two versions of the WATE) - if that's the case your lens and mine could be either V2 or V3. However, the frequent pattern of production batches at the end of 2000 suggests stock building before the appearance of the "Redesigned" version later in 2001. In which case, our lenses would be V2 (mine is sharp but shows significant veiling flare @ 50mm when shooting into the light). Just conjectures, I know:confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 10, 2012 Share #65 Posted January 10, 2012 Here, read this on Steve Huffs' web site it may clear things up just a bit. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/11/the-leica-mate-lens-review-medium-angle-tri-elmar-by-ashwin-rao/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #66 Posted January 10, 2012 I believe this is a mistake in the Wiki. I have one too... The "Redesigned" mention appears from S/N 3920101. This "could" indeed mean V3 (interesting - always thought there were only two versions of the WATE) - if that's the case your lens and mine could be either V2 or V3. However, the frequent pattern of production batches at the end of 2000 suggests stock building before the appearance of the "Redesigned" version later in 2001. In which case, our lenses would be V2 (mine is sharp but shows significant veiling flare @ 50mm when shooting into the light). Just conjectures, I know:confused: I agree it's a mistake in the Wiki, but what is the correct number? I noticed that in Puts Pocket guide as well, where he puts "Redesigned" in the entry, but since it's in the next entry for the Tri-Elmar after our missing entry, could the range of "Redesigned" include ours? Who knows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted January 10, 2012 Share #67 Posted January 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It could, but as I explained I rather think that our lenses were one of the very last batches of V2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted January 10, 2012 Share #68 Posted January 10, 2012 It could, but as I explained I rather think that our lenses were one of the very last batches of V2. If I had to guess, I would agree. However according to Mr. Puts, they all had the same optical cell, so the amount of flare should be no difference from one version to another. I don't have any noticeable flare in my lens. So as they say YMMV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 10, 2012 Share #69 Posted January 10, 2012 Someone please contact Erwin Putts and let him put this to sleep. Forum monitor please contact E.P. and clear this up once and for all, please. I have and he says, Quote: "There is only one optical cell for the Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50, but two different versions that differ only in the mount. The original one has E55 and part number 11890 (lens hood 12592). The second version has E49 and part number 11625 ( lens hood 12450). It might be that the lens hood design changed, but not the part number. There is no official third version of the lens and to be sure optically both official versions are identical" Unquote. Please note that I am not acting for the forum monitor as implied by stanj0, just as a supportive forum member. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 10, 2012 Share #70 Posted January 10, 2012 David, I thank you and all readers of this thread should also for getting the Edwin PUTS (I spelled it right this time) acknowledgment as to the true parameters of the Mate. Puts is the Leica expert as Bjorn R. is the Nikon expert. As a private comment it is a hell of a lot easier to get in touch with E.P. than B.R who now even bought his own forum. :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 11, 2012 Share #71 Posted January 11, 2012 Just in case you missed the link I provided in post #65. I thought I'd fuzzy things up again. The Leica MATE Lens Review (Medium Angle Tri-Elmar) by Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS FWIW, the camera store I purchased my MATE from said I was being sold version 3. OH MY ????????? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 11, 2012 Share #72 Posted January 11, 2012 ....FWIW, the camera store I purchased my MATE from said I was being sold version 3. OH MY ????????? Then you should try and educate them! Not all dealers are true Leica experts, usually because they have to cover so many different brands. It is a tall 'ask', especially for younger members of the retail profession who rarely have any real personal experience of Leica equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 11, 2012 Share #73 Posted January 11, 2012 I'm not brave enough to contact them and tell them they don't know what they are talking about. You do it…..here's their link:About Us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 11, 2012 Share #74 Posted January 11, 2012 It really isn't my business to intervene in a transaction not of my making. Much depends on your relationship with the dealer as to whether you carry the issue further. What I was really saying was that you cannot expect all Leica dealers to possess encyclopaedic knowledge about all Leica products. Many who I have dealt with have welcomed my views on aspects of Leica-lore previously unknown to them but which comes from my personal experience. Discussed with discretion, friendships strengthen. That can only be good for future dealings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2012 Share #75 Posted January 11, 2012 Version II has a reduced diameter, is supposed to be less fragile ( the usual Leica myths and countermyths? Those crosssections, offered - and sold - on ebay for insane sums, confirmed that ) and it has a TAB. For me that's important. Best, Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted January 11, 2012 Share #76 Posted January 11, 2012 Version II has a reduced diameter, is supposed to be less fragile ( the usual Leica myths and countermyths? Those crosssections, offered - and sold - on ebay for insane sums, confirmed that ) and it has a TAB. For me that's important.Best, Simon I guess the question is now whether there is a V3 or not and, if so, what the differences are vs. V2:confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 11, 2012 Share #77 Posted January 11, 2012 If you use the link I had provided to Steve Huffs' web site with Ashwin Rao's article on the MATE, scroll down near the bottom to question #4. Then read #5, the answer. I think it sheds some light on the subject. Ashwin states their was "cosmetic improvements in the later phase of E49 lens production" a "3rd version of the lens". Erwin Puts as well as Leica does't consider cosmetic changes a new version, hence the same catalog number. So some people must consider these cosmetic improvements enough to consider it a new version even though it technically isn't. I think it seems reasonable that Leicaphiles are so into even the tiniest change or improvement in Leica products that something like this MATE confusion is on occasion possible. So, I guess a late version 2 with cosmetic improvements by Leica will forever be considered by some to be version 3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2012 Share #78 Posted January 11, 2012 Any reference book mentioning "Ver. III" ? Or an article in LH you could quote? As far as I can see you are the only one SPEAKING about it and claiming more competence in this than Leica Company and Erwin Puts. And you're not talking about pre-war items, but about fairly recent ones. At least some pictures of lenses to see with visible series numbers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share #79 Posted January 12, 2012 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. I 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billib Posted January 12, 2012 Share #80 Posted January 12, 2012 I couldn't agree more. Two versions makes the most sense and a modified version 2 is just a modified version 2 however, when a version 3 is mentioned we'll know what they mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.