Mark Pope Posted April 21, 2016 Share #61 Posted April 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can see that working with basically a coloured disc rotating underneath the bayonet... The mind boggles, but I would imagine that Leica would want that to work on their film bodies too. A rotating disk may work, but I think it it would need to be with either black or white pits above the sensor. If there were 2 codes allocated to a new MATE, then in principle you could have 28/90, 50/75 and 35/135 available depending on the code and frame position. Then, a MATE with a wider range of focal lengths *may* be feasible, assuming the right types of glass are available. It would make a new lens more complex than the current MATE from a mechanical point of view, so it wouldn't be cheap to manufacture. The other thought that's just popped into my head is that the compact size of the MATE is probably due to the special high refractive index glass used in its construction. A new design may have to be bigger, so blocking the viewfinder to an unacceptable degree. Still, it's nice to dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Hi Mark Pope, Take a look here Tri Elmar 28-35-50 opinions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Schrödinger's cat Posted April 21, 2016 Share #62 Posted April 21, 2016 Interesting. I always thought it was Tamron, not Sigma. Must be another urban legend. I was certain it was Hoya. (seriously) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 21, 2016 Share #63 Posted April 21, 2016 Jos. Schneider & Co. And there was was no thorium in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrödinger's cat Posted April 21, 2016 Share #64 Posted April 21, 2016 Jos. Schneider & Co. And there was was no thorium in it. Well, I was kinda close. I'm pretty sure Hoya owns Schneider. I did fine a bit of (cheap) cigar ash in my sample, however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 22, 2016 Share #65 Posted April 22, 2016 Well, I was kinda close. I'm pretty sure Hoya owns Schneider. I did fine a bit of (cheap) cigar ash in my sample, however. Different Schneider. The forerunner of Schneider Kreutznach <sp> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrödinger's cat Posted April 22, 2016 Share #66 Posted April 22, 2016 Different Schneider. The forerunner of Schneider Kreutznach <sp> Ah. I was unaware there was more than one. edit: Actually, on reflection I think I was even more confused than usual. I think I was actually recalling either Schindler owning B and H or perhaps the other way around. German company ownership is not commonly something I meditate on over a beer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 22, 2016 Share #67 Posted April 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) That would be B&W Schneider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted April 22, 2016 Share #68 Posted April 22, 2016 Must be another urban legend. I was certain it was Hoya. (seriously) Come to think of it - you may actually be right. Perhaps I mixed this up - it is a few years ago now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pope Posted April 25, 2016 Share #69 Posted April 25, 2016 Well, 20 days after having dropped my MATE V2 off at Leica Mayfair, it's back from being coded...I'm looking forward to going out for a walk and test it. It's a shame the weather is dull and uninteresting. If anyone is interested, it cost €284. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted September 21, 2016 Share #70 Posted September 21, 2016 Anyone have experience with the MATE on a Monochrom v.1? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 21, 2016 Share #71 Posted September 21, 2016 Anyone have experience with the MATE on a Monochrom v.1? I have an E49 MATE which gets used regularly on my Monochrom v1. Very nice! Just remember there is no such thing a s a bad lens on the Monochrom but the older lenses, including the MATE, just take that sharp edge of Monochrome files. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/236071-tri-elmar-28-35-50-opinions/?do=findComment&comment=3116430'>More sharing options...
Etruscello Posted September 21, 2016 Share #72 Posted September 21, 2016 This has been a useful thread, relative to a purchase of a Tri-Elmar 28 to 50; except for any discussion of one reported flaw: flare, especially at 50mm. Does any one find tendency to flare a major problem? Does poor flare control characterize all such Tri-Elmars, or is it a matter of sample variation? If the latter, can it be repaired? Thank you for any information. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 21, 2016 Share #73 Posted September 21, 2016 Yes, the Tri-Elmar can be prone to flare. I never was bothered by it, it is part of photographic technique to avoid (or use ) flare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etruscello Posted September 22, 2016 Share #74 Posted September 22, 2016 Thank you, JAAPV, this intricate lens is worth the effort to fashion a technique unique to its use. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 22, 2016 Share #75 Posted September 22, 2016 This has been a useful thread, relative to a purchase of a Tri-Elmar 28 to 50; except for any discussion of one reported flaw: flare, especially at 50mm. Does any one find tendency to flare a major problem? Does poor flare control characterize all such Tri-Elmars, or is it a matter of sample variation? If the latter, can it be repaired? Thank you for any information. Tom IT does flare too easily at 50mm (I am bothered by it) and there is a fair bit of barrel distortion at 28mm (unsuitable for architectural but fine for more general photography). I think these are inherent faults of the lens design. Having said that I still really like my E49 MATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted September 22, 2016 Share #76 Posted September 22, 2016 Yes, the Tri-Elmar can be prone to flare. I never was bothered by it, it is part of photographic technique to avoid (or use ) flare. The hood didn't help? Any thoughts of its use with a Monochrom? IT does flare too easily at 50mm (I am bothered by it) and there is a fair bit of barrel distortion at 28mm (unsuitable for architectural but fine for more general photography). I think these are inherent faults of the lens design. Having said that I still really like my E49 MATE. Hmmm...still worthy of modern digital sensors? Any corner smearing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted September 28, 2016 Share #77 Posted September 28, 2016 Unfortunately, little help from the hood regarding flaring. The lens is prone to flare, but flare can, as jaapv allude to, be used artistically. Or it can be avoided if/when you are aware of this. Live view generally shows the flaring, which make M240-type of bodies better suited than e.g. M9. I really like the MATE on the Monochrome, I have posted some images on the M246 image thread. MM1 should behave similarly (I have used both of the monochromes) with the caveat about the live view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 28, 2016 Share #78 Posted September 28, 2016 Unfortunately, little help from the hood regarding flaring. The lens is prone to flare, but flare can, as jaapv allude to, be used artistically. Or it can be avoided if/when you are aware of this. Live view generally shows the flaring, which make M240-type of bodies better suited than e.g. M9. I really like the MATE on the Monochrome, I have posted some images on the M246 image thread. MM1 should behave similarly (I have used both of the monochromes) with the caveat about the live view. For some owners, flare with the MATE has been a deal-breaker. The hood does help a little, so does a spare hand operating like an extended lens hood petal. On balance the lens has many advantages and works best of all on the M-240 with live-view. The TE28 setting has always been a weak point but is still useful for general personal photography. A companion Leica Q also works well if carrying two bodies is acceptable. But TE35 and TE50 give top class results making it a fine travel lens companion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 28, 2016 Share #79 Posted September 28, 2016 My 28-35-50/4 v1 works fine on M240, M8.2, Sony A7s mod & Fuji X-E2. Never got significant smearing or color shifts so far. Only con is flare at 50mm mainly but this is a known problem that is easy to avoid with an EVF. I like much the built-in shade of v1 for its compactness and never used an accessory hood with this lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 28, 2016 Share #80 Posted September 28, 2016 Some lenses exhibit flare more than others. Flare is not caused by the lens. It is caused by the photographer. If you shoot into a light source or shoot with a bright light source hitting or close to hitting the front element from the side you deserve everything you get. It's been that way since lenses were invented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.