Getting a MATE - pure GAS or simply very smart?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The combination of six bit coding and the position of the frame line selector also provides information for corrections based on focal length.  Information is definitely provided in exif. The WATE, as a true zoom, does not provide such communication AFAIK.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Stein K S]

On 8/4/2019 at 10:30 PM, michali said:

Throwing my 10c in here. I've had a Vers. 1 MATE since 2000, initially used it on my M6 and then M7.  It's travelled all over Africa and been to Antarctica with me; the kind of environments you don't want to be changing lenses in. Never given me any grief. I self 6 bit-coded it, FL and framelines come up correctly.

It's built like a tank. You just need to take care when changing focal lengths, be gentle. 

Best,

Mike

 

Hi and very nice to hear also about this lens´ «sturdiness» (despite its complex construction)!

As described previously in this thread I bought my MATE. A very nice and tight copy. And I am also so pleased about how this lens draws. 

As mentioned, nice to hear that «it is built like a tank» 😊 However, mine got a rather slight knock (my wife´s elbow) with the result that the frontring came loose... It is going to Leica for a CLA this week, so no big worries. But is it correct that I have read about this loose frontring to be a weakness of this lens? And since it seems to be exactly that... a front ring not connected to any lens group (?)... is there any danger for it to totally fall off? Sorry about this possibly rather silly question 😉

Edited August 6, 2019 by Stein K S

[lct]

I don't think so but i would not treat that lens like a tank, rather like a swiss watch, you know the ones with complications.

 

[Ecar]

12 hours ago, Stein K S said:

As mentioned, nice to hear that «it is built like a tank» 😊 However, mine got a rather slight knock (my wife´s elbow) with the result that the frontring came loose... It is going to Leica for a CLA this week, so no big worries. But is it correct that I have read about this loose frontring to be a weakness of this lens? And since it seems to be exactly that... a front ring not connected to any lens group (?)... is there any danger for it to totally fall off? Sorry about this possibly rather silly question 😉

I don't know about the v1, but the front ring issue does indeed seem to happen frequently on the v2. Mine was fixed in Solms a few years ago, only for the wobble to appear again last year. This time I sent it to Will van Manen, who indicated that it should be fixed permanently (not sure what he did to it). We'll see...

[mdemeyer]

The front ring on the v2 is held in place by a few set screws with (if I remember correctly) a 0.75mm hex.  [If my memory is wrong on the size, someone remind me.]. They are often further stabilized with some kind of putty in the holes. 

A simple fix with the right tool.  No need to send to Germany for that. 

[Stein K S]

Hi again

 

It has been a while... and My M10 & Tri-Elmar is back from service at Leica DE. And things are supersmooth as always. Tri-Elmar front ring, focus & clicks are nice and tight. And the frame lever and frames ¨follows¨ the lens nicely between/from 35 through 50 to 28. However, The EXIF data still show 50mm when in 35mm position (as it also did before the CLA). And since frame lever and frames clearly gets in the right 35mm position ¨well in time¨ between the switches with seemingly good margins (also ref Jeff S comment in june), I would think this should not be possible... now it seems the M10 is the problem...

I will actually not bother to do anything with this (no bigger deal really), but still curious if others have comments or experience the same thing?

 

[Gregm61]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Once you’ve.spent $3,500-$4,000 or more on any lens or camera, you’ve “earned” the right to call it GAS, smart, crazy or anything else you want, LOL....

[ocean2059]

5 hours ago, Stein K S said:

Hi again

 

It has been a while... and My M10 & Tri-Elmar is back from service at Leica DE. And things are supersmooth as always. Tri-Elmar front ring, focus & clicks are nice and tight. And the frame lever and frames ¨follows¨ the lens nicely between/from 35 through 50 to 28. However, The EXIF data still show 50mm when in 35mm position (as it also did before the CLA). And since frame lever and frames clearly gets in the right 35mm position ¨well in time¨ between the switches with seemingly good margins (also ref Jeff S comment in june), I would think this should not be possible... now it seems the M10 is the problem...

I will actually not bother to do anything with this (no bigger deal really), but still curious if others have comments or experience the same thing?

 

What Jeff described is correct. On my M240, the WATE shows the right EXIF date with respective focal length. Since this is a mechanical + software couple, I always make sure the rangefinder frame line is correctly trigged when the lens is switched for different focal length.  

[Stein K S]

On 8/9/2019 at 6:20 PM, mdemeyer said:

The front ring on the v2 is held in place by a few set screws with (if I remember correctly) a 0.75mm hex.  [If my memory is wrong on the size, someone remind me.]. They are often further stabilized with some kind of putty in the holes. 

A simple fix with the right tool.  No need to send to Germany for that. 

Hi again 

I do not know about which hex size is correct. But I checked with what I define as a specialist store on tools like this. And they could only provide 0.70mm hex (or 0,90). And they got really curious about where this spec come from. Any input anyone?

[mdemeyer]

14 hours ago, Stein K S said:

Hi again 

I do not know about which hex size is correct. But I checked with what I define as a specialist store on tools like this. And they could only provide 0.70mm hex (or 0,90). And they got really curious about where this spec come from. Any input anyone?

I’ll try to fine the tools I bought.  My 0.75mm statement was from memory, so could easily have been 0.7mm if that’s the commonly available size.

[james.liam]

On 8/9/2019 at 12:20 PM, mdemeyer said:

The front ring on the v2 is held in place by a few set screws with (if I remember correctly) a 0.75mm hex.  [If my memory is wrong on the size, someone remind me.]. They are often further stabilized with some kind of putty in the holes. 

A simple fix with the right tool.  No need to send to Germany for that. 

Had a Rigid that had been fiddled in a DIY attempt by someone else before me and Leica NJ was not happy. Cost me double to undo the damage. 
 

it’s a US$3500-4,000 lens. Why muck around tightening things with putty? If it were a LTM lens worth 1/10th, maybe. 

[Stein K S]

1 hour ago, james.liam said:

Had a Rigid that had been fiddled in a DIY attempt by someone else before me and Leica NJ was not happy. Cost me double to undo the damage. 
 

it’s a US$3500-4,000 lens. Why muck around tightening things with putty? If it were a LTM lens worth 1/10th, maybe. 

Hi

I agree. I have never touched any of my Leica gears with any tool. I havenˋtneven dared to replace the red Leica logo on my M9 with a blsck one received from DA G a few years ago... 😉

The MATE just arrived from its CLA in Germany... almost 10 week wait & 580,- euros.  A ¨joy¨, but also cost & time.

BUT if this front ring is prone to losen more than on other Leica lenses (on a usd 3500-4000 lens ?!)... and this ring has no «quality/adjustment impact» to the lens... well, then it could be tempting to bring up that hex tool...

Edited October 26, 2019 by Stein K S

[james.liam]

10 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

Hi

I agree. I have never touched any of my Leica gears with any tool. The MATE just arrived from its CLA in Germany... almost 10 week wait & 580,- euros. I haven´t even dared to exchange the red Leica logo on my M9 with my black logo bought from DAG years ago...😉

BUT if this front ring is prone to losen more than on other Leica lenses... and this ring has no «quality impact» to the lens... well, then it could be tempting to bring up that hex tool...

 

Your best bet is to contact the closest authorized Leica dealer in Norway near you. They undoubtedly have a local repairman/woman for simple adjustments, perhaps employed by the shop itself.

Edited October 26, 2019 by james.liam

[Stein K S]

8 minutes ago, james.liam said:

 

Your best bet is to contact the closest authorized Leica dealer in Norway near you. They undoubtedly have a local repairman/woman for simple adjustments, perhaps employed by the shop itself.

I agree.... they should.... But I know them... and they are soooo cautious...😉

[james.liam]

Using the wrong amount of torque on a screw with this rather delicate and complex optic seems risky to me. If I recall, changing focal lengths with too much force is proscribed against. Actions bearing lesser consequence with disposable lenses like 7 Artisans, TT Artisans and the like, built to looser specs can be costly errors on Leicas. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by james.liam

[roydonian]

In his 2011 book 'Leica Compendium', Erwin Puts states that in the 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar, "Flare is very well controlled", but this does not match the comments that several posters have reported in this thread, nor my own experience.

Although my v2 Tri-Elmar has always been used with the 12450 hood, it is badly affected by flare at the 50mm setting.  Working as a freelance journalist, I was not able to trust it - some imagery had severely degraded contrast over part or even all of the frame, while a few images were so badly flared as to be utterly unusable. Not wishing to have the potential problem of having to explain to a client that I didn't have usable pics of a news event because my Leica lens had flared, while the chaps with other brands of lens had been able to file usable pics with rival publications, I stopped using the Tri-Elmar.

Recently I acquired a Leica M-D, so when using this camera have no way to check whether an image has been degraded by flare. So once again I am leaving the Tri-Elmar on the shelf. I did use this lens a recent camera club outing, and many of the pics taken at the 50mm setting can be easily be identified by poor contrast in the darker areas.

 

[jcraf]

3 minutes ago, roydonian said:

In his 2011 book 'Leica Compendium', Erwin Puts states that in the 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar, "Flare is very well controlled", but this does not match the comments that several posters have reported in this thread, nor my own experience.

Although my v2 Tri-Elmar has always been used with the 12450 hood, it is badly affected by flare at the 50mm setting.  Working as a freelance journalist, I was not able to trust it - some imagery had severely degraded contrast over part or even all of the frame, while a few images were so badly flared as to be utterly unusable. Not wishing to have the potential problem of having to explain to a client that I didn't have usable pics of a news event because my Leica lens had flared, while the chaps with other brands of lens had been able to file usable pics with rival publications, I stopped using the Tri-Elmar.

Recently I acquired a Leica M-D, so when using this camera have no way to check whether an image has been degraded by flare. So once again I am leaving the Tri-Elmar on the shelf. I did use this lens a recent camera club outing, and many of the pics taken at the 50mm setting can be easily be identified by poor contrast in the darker areas.

 

 

+1.

I've had my v1 MATE 6-bit for a few years now, and the more I use it, on Ms and the SL, the more I realise that it is (inevitably perhaps) an optical compromise. Especially at 50mm, where is flares even with the correct hood.  Should we have expected anything less than a compromise in performance (aperture aside)? I don't know.  Anyhow, the last outing on which used it (when I was in Seville for the recent One Challenge, albeit not used for the competition itself), I found the results oddly lack-lustre compared to the results I achieved with M primes in that city.

I accept that it's very convenient; that's why I bought it; but time to retire/sell it perhaps?

 

[a.noctilux]

Yes, the MATE flares a lot at 50mm.

I have two "pseudo-solutions" :

- now my wife use it and she never complains about the famous flare, happy user she is ( as usual ! )

- when I use the MATE, I tend to use only 28/35mm,  I do have another separate 50mm lens ( I own some from f/1 to f/3.5 Elmar LTM ) which is not as flare prone (a few at last in what I use). Summarit-M 2.5/50 is a very good candidate, now.

Edited October 27, 2019 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

2 hours ago, roydonian said:

In his 2011 book 'Leica Compendium', Erwin Puts states that in the 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar, "Flare is very well controlled" [...]

Which proves how experienced some reviewers can be . Flare is so disturbing at 50mm that i don't use my MATE on rangefinders any more. No problem on mirrorless cameras though. 

[roydonian]

My current 'pseudo solution' is to mount a retractable Summicron on the camera, and add a 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux and 28mm Summaron to my camera bag. At the cost of adding less than 300g to the total weight, I gain 2 stops at 50mm, 3 stops at 35mm, but lose 1 stop at 28mm.

I was thinking of sending the Tri-Elmar back to Wetzlar to be checked in case some anti-flare feature or treatment had been forgotten when it was assembled, but to judge by the comments in this thread I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by roydonian