Tri-elmar MATE on SL

[Bohns]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Just got my SL with the VE 24-90. Great.

 

I also own several M lenses, so I bought the adapter. All my lenses are 6 bit coded, but the MATE (a V1, E55). I feel it cumbersome to manually select a different lens profile pending I use it at 28, 50 or 35 mm focal, even if I limited the list of the M profiles to the sole lenses I own and assigned a shortcut on a button to be faster.

 

Here is my question : if I decide to spend the bucks for getting my MATE coded, will the SL assign the proper profile automatically pending the focal length ?

 

I know it works with the M bodies, but it seems it is thanks to the mechanical frames selection, which does not exist for the SL. I know many are using the SL with WATE, and I guess the functioning should be identical.

 

Note that I do not consider the MATE to be a dublon with the VE SL.

 

Thank you for your insights,

Stef.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bohns

[thighslapper]

The MATE if coded registers as the correct lens on the SL and EXIF info ..... but defaults to 28mm as the focal length recorded, irrespective of the setting on the lens. Same with the WATE which puts 16mm in the EXIF regardless. 

 

There is no way to change this, except as you say, manually changing the recognition to another lens with a focal length equivalent to what you have chosen.

 

At least you will have MATE in the DNG EXIF which is correct ...... and bear in mind you can use it on the SL as a zoom at intermediate settings, so worrying about recording the exact f/l seems a bit pointless. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bohns]

Thanks.

 

Does it mean that to get benefit of the eventual sofware correction, although the lens would be coded, ones would still need to select manually the focal in the lenses profiles menu ?

[helged]

At least you will have MATE in the DNG EXIF which is correct ...... and bear in mind you can use it on the SL as a zoom at intermediate settings, so worrying about recording the exact f/l seems a bit pointless. 

 

 

If I am not mistaken; WATE acts as a true zoom, whereas the MATE has three distinct focal lengths. Therefore, I guess, MATE is a trial-focal-length lens, not a true zoom. I have sold my WATE and MATE, so the above is based on my memory...

[Bohns]

Plus the fact that auto-ISO requires to know the focal length, or ISO is set "per defect" at 50 if focal length is considered unknown by the camera...

[jaapv]

But if you have the 24-90, the only advantage of the MATE appears to be the size, which is offset by the cumbersome setting. Given that the image quality of the 24-90 is considerably better I see little use for the lens. However, YMMV.

[Bohns]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jaap. I of course agree that 24-90 is exceptionnal from IQ standpoint.

But you got it; the MATE is considerably smaller and lighter, which in some circumstances could be useful. I consider both complement each other interestingly.

 

If I follow you, there is no way, even when coded, to get the body assessing which focal length is in use ?

[AlanJW]

Thanks Jaap. I of course agree that 24-90 is exceptionnal from IQ standpoint.

But you got it; the MATE is considerably smaller and lighter, which in some circumstances could be useful. I consider both complement each other interestingly.

 

If I follow you, there is no way, even when coded, to get the body assessing which focal length is in use ?

Yes, I agree.  And if you also have an M10, the MATE is a very good walkaround lens for traveling.   In fact, while the 24-90 is exceptional, it is also big and heavy and for walking around/traveling/ etc. even on the SL the MATE makes sense.

[steppenw0lf]

The MATE is manual on the SL. (and is no zoom) For that there are other lenses that offer actually better optical quality than the MATE  (which shows it's flaws quite clearly.)

For the M the MATE is maybe ok, if you like the special rendering of the lens.

 

So I prefer instead a Contax 3.4/35-70 or R 4/35-70 Macro if I want to avoid the SL 24-90. Or maybe even the Contax 3.3-4/28-85.

The first two are small and the third quite flexible - and all are optically better than the MATE  (more modern rendering, very sharp) but not comparable to the SL 24-90.

Edited August 1, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[helged]

The MATE is manual on the SL. (and is no zoom) For that there are other lenses that offer actually better optical quality than the MATE  (which shows it's flaws quite clearly.)

For the M the MATE is maybe ok, if you like the special rendering of the lens.

 

So I prefer instead a Contax 3.4/35-70 or R 4/35-70 Macro if I want to avoid the SL 24-90. Or maybe even the Contax 3.3-4/28-85.

The first two are small and the third quite flexible - and all are optically better than the MATE  (more modern rendering, very sharp) but not comparable to the SL 24-90.

 

 

+1 for the Contax 3.4/35-70 and the Leica R 4/35-70 Macro.

[Vieri]

Hi Stef,

 

a coded MATE or WATE will default to 28 and 16mm respectively. However, you cn override the focal length so that it shows both the correct focal length AND the correct lens. Hope this helps, best

 

Vieri

Edited August 1, 2017 by Vieri

[FlashGordonPhotography]

...... and bear in mind you can use it on the SL as a zoom at intermediate settings, so worrying about recording the exact f/l seems a bit pointless. 

 

No you can't. Unlike the WATE the MATE is not a zoom lens intermediate settings result in fuzzy blobs of nothingness.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

And the MATE focal lengths aren't sequential like the WATE, I.e., 35-50-28 vs 16-18 21. Weird even if it could zoom.

 

I'd love to see a more modern MATE version, for travel, but doesn't seem likely.

 

Jeff

[Leicaiste]

+1 for the Contax 3.4/35-70 and the Leica R 4/35-70 Macro.

A ROM coded Leica R 4/35-70 Macro and the R Adapter-L will inform the SL about the actual/real focal length in use.

 

Same for the R 28-90.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Leicaiste

[Bohns]

Thanks all for your visits and answers

[Bohns]

Thanks all for your visits and answers :-)

 

Nevertheless, my question is not about the relevancy of the exif data, nor it is about finding a compact complement to the VE SL 24-90; I have it with the MATE. I know there could be better, but I love its "character".

 

My question refers to the lens correction profiles, which in the SL are related to the focal length, with no mechanical substitute like the frame selection which in the M allows to automatically select the used focal length. What I may expect are different distortion or color fringes corrections in DNG pending focal length. This couple SL+ MATE does not exist in DXO... And please do not advise me to use LR or C1 instead ;-)

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bohns

[250swb]

The MATE is a well corrected lens and in all the tests done using it on other digital cameras, such as the Sony A series it is one of the few that can perform well without corrections. But it begs the question, if you have a MATE, an adapter, and an SL, why not just try using the damned thing and see what happens?

[thighslapper]

No you can't. Unlike the WATE the MATE is not a zoom lens intermediate settings result in fuzzy blobs of nothingness.

 

Gordon

 

...... ah ...... I relied on what I could see through the viewfinder when I tested it a while ago ...... you are correct ..... at the intermediate settings it is not possible to focus on infinity ... although closer objects are possible. Just goes to show how complex the mechanics and optics are .... and why Leica stopped making it 

[ramarren]

... My question refers to the lens correction profiles, which in the SL are related to the focal length, with no mechanical substitute like the frame selection which in the M allows to automatically select the used focal length. What I may expect are different distortion or color fringes corrections in DNG pending focal length. This couple SL+ MATE does not exist in DXO... And please do not advise me to use LR or C1 instead ;-)

 

 

Since the MATE and WATE are adapted manual lenses, the body has no clue which of the three focal lengths you've chosen. So yes: you need to pick the focal length you are using in the SL profile picker manually. There's no way around this. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount