darylgo Posted December 6, 2015 Share #21 Â Posted December 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well that certainly isn't the case with the 2.8-90/24-90 Vario-Elmarit-R With the 24/3.8, current 50/1.4, 90/f2 apo it is the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Hi darylgo, Take a look here MATE Ver2 49mm on a M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted December 6, 2015 Share #22  Posted December 6, 2015 I have all those lenses and I would not disagree with that comparison (and the modern 28's, 35 Summicron, 75 APO-Summicron, etc.) although I have to say that the 28-90 compares very well with these current lenses and has that similar more 'transparent' rendering.  My comments earlier were with respect to the MATE and 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R when compared with equivalent primes of the time excluding the latest highly corrected lenses (exactly my qualification in post #16) in my experience, and certainly as reported by Puts.  We're probably arguing the same point  .    I would not be surprised if the 24-90 SL is not as well optically corrected with respect to distortion (a big ask over such a range) but is corrected significantly by software/firmware (such as with the X-Vario) so we would never know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 6, 2015 Share #23 Â Posted December 6, 2015 I would not be surprised if the 24-90 SL is not as well optically corrected with respect to distortion (a big ask over such a range) but is corrected significantly by software/firmware (such as with the X-Vario) so we would never know. We can know; the instruction for the corrections are embedded within the DNG file and some software can be made not to apply the corrections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 6, 2015 Share #24 Â Posted December 6, 2015 We can know; the instruction for the corrections are embedded within the DNG file and some software can be made not to apply the corrections. Â What software? How would you do this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 6, 2015 Share #25  Posted December 6, 2015 I have all those lenses and I would not disagree with that comparison (and the modern 28's, 35 Summicron, 75 APO-Summicron, etc.) although I have to say that the 28-90 compares very well with these current lenses and has that similar more 'transparent' rendering.  My comments earlier were with respect to the MATE and 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R when compared with equivalent primes of the time excluding the latest highly corrected lenses (exactly my qualification in post #16) in my experience, and certainly as reported by Puts.  We're probably arguing the same point  .    I would not be surprised if the 24-90 SL is not as well optically corrected with respect to distortion (a big ask over such a range) but is corrected significantly by software/firmware (such as with the X-Vario) so we would never know. It is difficult to seperate out optics given stabilization and software working behind the scenes. My few images with the lens in the Leica store impressed me with its sharpness along with the SL' dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2015 Share #26 Â Posted December 6, 2015 I would not be surprised if the 24-90 SL is not as well optically corrected with respect to distortion (a big ask over such a range) but is corrected significantly by software/firmware (such as with the X-Vario) so we would never know. Also: size matters, when looking at the discontinued Tri and at the new 24-90. One of the many advantages of the rangefinder & optical viewfinder in the M is, that it requires compact lenses. Â I'm glad, any new ones for M-Leicas (from Wetzlar or from Japan, being designed in Oberkochen or not) can not look (and weight) Â like the new 24-90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2015 Share #27 Â Posted December 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) What software? How would you do this? Going to the Erlebnistage to Wetzlar was an event (=Erlebnis) for me mostly for one lecture. Comparing Capture One (uncorrected) pictures of this one to the Nikon 2.8/24-70VR could not convince me to drive there this year for the occasion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 6, 2015 Share #28 Â Posted December 6, 2015 Thank you, forgot about Capture One, great software but for me it fell by the wayside with the LR tsunami. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 6, 2015 Share #29 Â Posted December 6, 2015 Also: size matters, when looking at the discontinued Tri and at the new 24-90. One of the many advantages of the rangefinder & optical viewfinder in the M is, that it requires compact lenses. Â I'm glad, any new ones for M-Leicas (from Wetzlar or from Japan, being designed in Oberkochen or not) can not look (and weight) Â like the new 24-90. +1 Otus also, makes me appreciate Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 6, 2015 Share #30  Posted December 6, 2015 +1 Otus also, makes me appreciate Leica M.   My moment of clarity came after a long trip made 'longer' by the mass of a Billingham bag pregnant with a Nikon D700, 14-24, 24-70 & CV 125.  ¡No mas! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pope Posted December 6, 2015 Share #31  Posted December 6, 2015 My moment of clarity came after a long trip made 'longer' by the mass of a Billingham bag pregnant with a Nikon D700, 14-24, 24-70 & CV 125.  ¡No mas! I have had similar experiences using Canon 5Dmk II and similar lenses.  I've just reorganised my Small Hadley to take my M9-P, MATE, 21mm Zeiss Biogon and 90mm Macro-Elmar.  It's eminently portable and there are few situations that this outfit won't be able to handle.  My back will thank me for that!  The various comments about the quality of the MATE compared to prime lenses got me thinking.  My view is "so what if it's a touch softer than the equivalent prime?"  The only time someone will notice is if they are looking at an image at 100% on a monitor or with their nose so close to a print that you're not appreciating the image as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted December 7, 2015 Share #32  Posted December 7, 2015 The main drawbacks with the MATE are (obviously) f4 and, in my view, that it's somewhat prone to flare compared to many (most) primes. With digital M, the latter can be checked (and played with in a controlled manner) when using the EVF. Side-by-side comparison with primes may show some differences in technical quality, but will hardly be identified in isolation. During a two-week hike in the french Alps last summer, I used M246+MATE almost all the time. Worked brilliantly.  Some M9+MATE examples below.   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/253965-mate-ver2-49mm-on-a-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2944745'>More sharing options...
helged Posted December 7, 2015 Share #33  Posted December 7, 2015 ...and another one, this time a 7-image stitch (M9+MATE). 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/253965-mate-ver2-49mm-on-a-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2944747'>More sharing options...
kuau Posted December 8, 2015 Author Share #34 Â Posted December 8, 2015 No question the MATE is a brilliant lens, I'm not giving up on finding a good copy. I am just nervous spending $3800.00 which seems to be a good deal, yet without sending it in to Leica for repair I have no idea what I am getting myself into. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted December 8, 2015 Share #35 Â Posted December 8, 2015 ...and another one, this time a 7-image stitch (M9+MATE). Which focal setting did you use for this impressive panoramic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted December 8, 2015 Share #36 Â Posted December 8, 2015 I 6-bit coded my E49 MATE. Well worthwhile. As best as I can tell different vignetting corrections apply to the different FLs. Â I was told from Germany that mine was one of the best condition E49 MATEs that they'd seen back for CLA/6-bit coding: the aperture ring is light (almost rattly) compared to some other M lenses, and for obvious reasons the focus ring can feel a little heavy especially after it's nylon bushes have been replaced. Â You also need to be very precise with the FL ring to ensure you'e brought up the correct tramlines. Â I think you will be very happy with the lens - renders and colours beautifully on the M240. In most circumstances the maximum aperture of f4.0 is fine. My only complaint is the barrel distortion at 28mm - it is not an architectural lens at that FL but fine for other photography. Â My MATE stared out with a great feel to the aperture ring but became a bit sloppy over time. The front ring had loosened a bit because of putting the hood on and off. I tightened up the three grub screws in the front ring with a small jewellers screwdriver and it's back to normal. Over tightening can make the aperture ring to tight and can thread the screws so go gently. Â Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.