MATE Tri-Elmar on T, better and more useable than T 18-56?

[Ron Weissman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone tried a Leica M Tri-Elmar MATE (28-35-50) on a Leica T and compared it to the standard 18-56 T lens? The MATE has a constant F4 vs. the variable F3.5 - 5.6 on the 18-56. In theory, it should outperform the standard 18-56. Does it?  Anyone care to comment on relative image quality and on relative ease of focusing?

 

I have found a a new 18-56 at a great price. This "kit" lens is  optimized for the T, but of course, is, a slower lens throughout most of its range. I have no idea if the standard T lens would out perform the legendary MATE in terms of ease of use or optics on the T. Has anyone used both? I've been experimenting with the MATE and indoors I have found it (using the Visoflex viewfinder) much less easy to focus than on an M  body, so am curious about how it compares, both in terms of usability and image quality to the T 18-56. I've found the T 23 f2 a superb lens indoors.

[jdlaing]

The 18-56 is not a kit lens in any way.

 

Ease of use: The 18-56 is easier by way of auto focus. 

The MATE takes a little practice to focus with the EVF.

The image quality, to me, is better with the MATE.

[brill64]

i've used it (MATE) and it does out perform the T-zoom as any prime would. it's not a zoom. i didn't find focusing any more difficult or awkward than using any other Leica lens, plus it's a constant f4, as you mention so there's a small margin for error. like anything else, it takes practice and it's probably more of a case as to whether you want auto or manual focus. both are different beasts and useful under different circumstances.

[tom0511]

I have both but so far never had the idea to use the MATE on the T.

The MATE at 50mm is a little shorter in focal length than other 50mm primes from Leica. So I assume its real focal length is a little shorter than 50mm, more like 47 or 48mm. Also the MATE starts at 28mm, while the T Zoom starts at 18mm.

 

So for have the cost of a MATE one gets a 18-56 which is for me a more flexible range, with AF (which I see as a big plus).

The image quality from the 18-56 is also so good that I dont see IQ to be a reason to not use the 18-56.

So then there is f4.0 vs f.5.6 at the long end, but if light is low even f4.0 isnt so great, so for me 23/2.0 + 18-56 much better solution than the MATE.

Of course if you are fine with the focal length range of the MATE, and if you a re fine with manuel focus and with the price of the lens, why not.

A plus I would see in the MATE that the 3 focal lengths invite to more active choose the focal length, while a zoom invites to zoom instead moving your feet and forgetting the focal length. Maybe the biggest advantage I would see in the MATE on the T.

[Guest]

The MATE at 28-35-50 is really a 42-52-75 equivalent on the T with its crop sensor. That's not nearly as versatile as the zoom depending on your shooting style and subject needs.

 

I have not used the MATE, but I would expect the white balance to sometimes be fiddly with an analog M lens. While it's fixable in PP, it is more work than with using the better mated digital lens that was designed exclusively to use on that camera.

 

These 2 reasons would draw me to the T zoom.

 

It's also nice to quickly grab a shot with AF like you can with the T zoom.

 

The T zoom, btw, is designed to 60lppm. It's very sharp. You can shoot at the wide end and easily crop for those moments when f5.6 @ 84mm isn't fast enough for a low light situation.

 

If you can get that lens at a bargain, I'd say go for it. I would rather pay less for the T zoom and then buy a faster prime like the T's 23mm (35mm equivalent) Summicron or upcoming 35mm (50mm equivalent) T Summilux.

 

Just my 2 cents of course.

[Ron Weissman]

Thanks, everyone, who replied to my question. I do have the 23 f2 and think it a very good lens and also have the MATE, which I find very hard to focus indoors (when the zoom feature of the viewfinder gets quite muddy and pixelated)--less so, outdoors.  Glad to hear that the 18-56 is a good performer, albeit a slow lens.  Based on this helpful feedback, I will probably add it to my kit. 

[Don Morley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Much as I like the Mate its no contest for me, I have both and the 18-56 wins hands down and in every way. Don  

[gdmiv]

I also have both the MATE and the T zoom.  The zoom

wins due to ease of use based on the AF. The IQ is

comparable in my use.   Doug