Ron Weissman Posted February 23, 2016 Share #1  Posted February 23, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Hi Ron Weissman, Take a look here MATE Tri-Elmar on T, better and more useable than T 18-56?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted February 23, 2016 Share #2  Posted February 23, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted February 24, 2016 Share #3 Â Posted February 24, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 24, 2016 Share #4 Â Posted February 24, 2016 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. Â 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2016 Share #5 Â Posted February 24, 2016 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. Â 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. Â These 2 reasons would draw me to the T zoom. Â It's also nice to quickly grab a shot with AF like you can with the T zoom. Â 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. Â 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. Â Just my 2 cents of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Weissman Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share #6  Posted February 24, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Morley Posted February 25, 2016 Share #7  Posted February 25, 2016 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  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdmiv Posted February 26, 2016 Share #8 Â Posted February 26, 2016 I also have both the MATE and the T zoom. Â The zoom wins due to ease of use based on the AF. The IQ is comparable in my use. Â Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.