helged Posted September 28, 2016 Share #81 Posted September 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Isn't this a too simplified description? There are DEGREES of flaring, and MATE is not among the least-prone flaring lenses out there. But as said before and experienced by many, flaring can be controlled/actively used by looking through an EVF. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 Hi helged, Take a look here Tri Elmar 28-35-50 opinions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted September 28, 2016 Share #82 Posted September 28, 2016 Isn't this a too simplified description? There are DEGREES of flaring, and MATE is not among the least-prone flaring lenses out there. But as said before and experienced by many, flaring can be controlled/actively used by looking through an EVF. Like I said.......if you shoot into bright light you deserve what you get. It's not oversimplified. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted September 29, 2016 Share #83 Posted September 29, 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. You contradict yourself in your first two sentences. Some lenses flare more that others, but lenses don't flare? It's called lens flare, not photographer flare for a reason! Lens flare can be avoided by the photographer, but different optical designs, glass, and coatings all influence the likelihood and severity of flare. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 29, 2016 Share #84 Posted September 29, 2016 You contradict yourself in your first two sentences. Some lenses flare more that others, but lenses don't flare? It's called lens flare, not photographer flare for a reason! Lens flare can be avoided by the photographer, but different optical designs, glass, and coatings all influence the likelihood and severity of flare. Yada yada yada. You know damn well what I meant. :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 29, 2016 Share #85 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) 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. Like we don't know what we are doing? Please. I've been shooting 50mm lenses since the early 1970s and the MATE at 50mm is more prone to flare than any other lens I've used in years. My other current Leica 50's include 2.0/50 Summitar, 1.0/50 Noctilux, 2.8/50 Elmarit-M, 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH, 2.0/50 APO0-Summicron. It has more flare problems than any of these lenses at 50mm, yes it even flares more than the 50-APO. That doesn't mean I cant often work around it or use the extended hand/arm accessory hood but sometimes there's just no getting around it. I still think the MATE is a great lens and I love the look/rendering of photographs from it.50mm. Flare at 50mm however is NOT one of it's strong points and one has to be careful to work around it. Edited September 29, 2016 by MarkP 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 29, 2016 Share #86 Posted September 29, 2016 Like we don't know what we are doing? Please.I've been shooting 50mm lenses since the early 1970s and the MATE at 50mm is more prone to flare than any other lens I've used in years. My other current Leica 50's include 2.0/50 Summitar, 1.0/50 Noctilux, 2.8/50 Elmarit-M, 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH, 2.0/50 APO0-Summicron. It has more flare problems than any of these lenses at 50mm, yes it even flares more than the 50-APO.That doesn't mean I cant often work around it or use the extended hand/arm accessory hood but sometimes there's just no getting around it.I still think the MATE is a great lens and I love the look/rendering of photographs from it.50mm. Flare at 50mm however is NOT one of it's strong points and one has to be careful to work around it. Here we go getting our cockles in a twist. Nobody said you didn't know what you were doing. And I've been shooting 50's since the 1960's. So what. Because you do something for years doesn't mean you've been doing it correctly.I simply said lenses don't cause flare. The photographer does. If you shoot into a light source you deserve what you get. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 29, 2016 Share #87 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) If you shoot into a light source you deserve what you get. Are you serious with this argument, or are you just trying to twist cockles? Edited September 29, 2016 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 29, 2016 Share #88 Posted September 29, 2016 Are you serious with this argument, or are you just trying to twist cockles?Dead serious. And only if your cookies are twistable.I'm not saying don't shoot into a light source. I never did. Stop reading things into my sentences. And it's not an argument even though you try to start one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S/W Posted September 29, 2016 Share #89 Posted September 29, 2016 In may opinion, the MATE is a wonderful lens, but not small and a stop of f/4.0: 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! Quote 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=3120869'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 29, 2016 Share #90 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Yes it is quite long but it only weighs 340gm, replaces 3 standard focal lengths, and for most general daytime photography f4.0 is more than adequate. Edited September 29, 2016 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 29, 2016 Share #91 Posted September 29, 2016 Dead serious. And only if your cookies are twistable. I'm not saying don't shoot into a light source. I never did. Stop reading things into my sentences. And it's not an argument even though you try to start one. You'ré the one who keeps saying one deserves everything one gets shooting into the light. Yes we all know that that is when a lens may well flare. Perhaps the early APO-50 users all got what they deserved. Leica would have loved it the consumers just blamed themselves for product failure "Its the photographer, not the lens that cause the flare". My point has simply been that this lens flares much more easily at 50mm than other 50s in challenging light situations. It is an obvious problem (at least for me) in an otherwis4e excellent lens. One either works around it if possible, accepts the flare which may or may not detract from the photo, or uses another 50. Yours is is an entirely different point that you continue to make in response to comments about this lens' propensity to flare so it's you being argumentative. Enough already from me but feel free to have the last word if you wish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted September 30, 2016 Share #92 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Dead serious. And only if your cookies are twistable. I'm not saying don't shoot into a light source. I never did. Stop reading things into my sentences. And it's not an argument even though you try to start one. There are actually quite a lot of lenses that you can quite happily shoot with the sun in or near the frame without having to worry too much, modern coatings are amazing things. The argument that all lenses flare so don't shoot with the sun in the frame is ridiculous. It's like saying don't push Tri-X because it'll be too grainy. Pish-posh, whatever. But seriously, you never shot into a light source? Never? Really? Never shot inside with a light in or near the frame? Never? Never shot a backlit scene? Really? WTF! Sunset..? Never? Edited September 30, 2016 by michaelwj 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 30, 2016 Share #93 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) There are actually quite a lot of lenses that you can quite happily shoot with the sun in or near the frame without having to worry too much (BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE MATE AT 50mm IS NOT ONE OF THEM), modern coatings are amazing things. The argument that all lenses flare so don't shoot with the sun in the frame is ridiculous. It's like saying don't push Tri-X because it'll be too grainy. Pish-posh, whatever. But seriously, you never shot into a light source? Never? Really? Never shot inside with a light in or near the frame? Never? Never shot a backlit scene? Really? WTF! Sunset..? Never? Well said :-) Edited September 30, 2016 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 30, 2016 Share #94 Posted September 30, 2016 There are actually quite a lot of lenses that you can quite happily shoot with the sun in or near the frame without having to worry too much, modern coatings are amazing things. The argument that all lenses flare so don't shoot with the sun in the frame is ridiculous. It's like saying don't push Tri-X because it'll be too grainy. Pish-posh, whatever. But seriously, you never shot into a light source? Never? Really? Never shot inside with a light in or near the frame? Never? Never shot a backlit scene? Really? WTF! Sunset..? Never? Between you and MarkP your noses are so high in the air you'll trip over your own feet. So that you both, and I know it is difficult for two sp perfect photogs, I'll repeat it: IF YOU SHOOT INTO A LIGHT SOURCE YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. I NEVER SAID DON'T DO IT. I SHOOT INTO LIGHT SOURCES ALL THE TIME. STOP BEING SO CONDESCENDING AND DEFENSIVE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 30, 2016 Share #95 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Between you and MarkP your noses are so high in the air you'll trip over your own feet. So that you both, and I know it is difficult for two sp perfect photogs, I'll repeat it: IF YOU SHOOT INTO A LIGHT SOURCE YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. I NEVER SAID DON'T DO IT. I SHOOT INTO LIGHT SOURCES ALL THE TIME. STOP BEING SO CONDESCENDING AND DEFENSIVE. Oh so now you've resorted to shouting in frustration with capital letters. We do speak English so there's no need to raise your voice. Are you having trouble understanding our Australian accent? It's you that keeps missing and/or ignoring the point some of us have made. Obviously any lens will flare if pushed hard enough. I get more of what you seem think I deserve shooting into the light using the MATE at 50mm because it flares far more than other 50s in challenging light. My other 50s flare less in the same situation but are more likely to give me what I want rather than what you seem to think I so much deserve. The MATE is an excellent compromise for all of the reasons we have discussed above but for me the flare at 50mm can be very frustrating. Do you get it? Edited September 30, 2016 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 30, 2016 Share #96 Posted September 30, 2016 JD - You'd best give up now. It is common knowledge that Aussies are tougher than Texans. You have no hope with this and have batked up the wrong bush... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted September 30, 2016 Share #97 Posted September 30, 2016 JD - You'd best give up now. It is common knowledge that Aussies are tougher than Texans. You have no hope with this and have batked up the wrong bush... They are definitely more hard headed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted September 30, 2016 Share #98 Posted September 30, 2016 Between you and MarkP your noses are so high in the air you'll trip over your own feet. So that you both, and I know it is difficult for two sp perfect photogs, I'll repeat it: IF YOU SHOOT INTO A LIGHT SOURCE YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. I NEVER SAID DON'T DO IT. I SHOOT INTO LIGHT SOURCES ALL THE TIME. STOP BEING SO CONDESCENDING AND DEFENSIVE. I don't know why your shouting, sorry if I offended. To clear things up, maybe you can elaborate on this statement? "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." From my point of view, I can shoot under those situations with many lenses and get no flare at all. I don't understand how black and white you're being. Again, apologies if I offended, but yes, I am quite tall so my nose is high in the air 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 30, 2016 Share #99 Posted September 30, 2016 JD - You'd best give up now. It is common knowledge that Aussies are tougher than Texans. You have no hope with this and have batked up the wrong bush... They are definitely more hard headed. Indeed we are ;-) I don't know why your shouting, sorry if I offended. To clear things up, maybe you can elaborate on this statement? "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." From my point of view, I can shoot under those situations with many lenses and get no flare at all. I don't understand how black and white you're being. Again, apologies if I offended, but yes, I am quite tall so my nose is high in the air All good :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 14, 2017 Share #100 Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) Just realised that closeups can be made down to 0.5 metre with my MATE v1. Suffice it to use the zoom ring as a focus ring between the 28 and 50 markings. Easy to do but live view is mandatory. Not the sharper camera here (Fuji X-E2) but you get the idea. 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! Edited May 14, 2017 by lct 1 1 Quote 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=3274790'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.