Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny that your choice of lenses "Collapsible Summicron 50mm/Summilux 35mm/Summaron 28mm" would just have the close focus limiting as MATE, 1 meter.

Not really important as under 1m, no much "things to photograph" 😪, I said to myself when I use those Barnack Leica limiting focus lenses to 1m .

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I see a potential need to get under 1m distance - a requirement that does not happen very often - I team the 5cm retractable Summicron with my SOOKY-M.

But the MATE was purchased not as a close-up lens, but to act as a 'short zoom' when I was working as a journalist at trade shows and other events, and to act as a 'walkabout' lens when travelling. The flare at the 50mm setting has made it a non-viable solution for both roles. But the second-hand price keeps creeping up, so I should eventually get back at least the equivalent of its purchase price, and might even make a modest profit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

... :(... what seemed to be judged a smart choice at the start of this thread has now turned the MATE into a more or less useless peace of glass?

I will now do some ¨torture testing¨ of this lens to provoke the lens to flare at 50mm to make up my own opinion. B)

 

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stein K S said:

... :(... what seemed to be judged a smart choice at the start of this thread has now turned the MATE into a more or less useless peace of glass?
I will now do some ¨torture testing¨ of this lens to provoke the lens to flare at 50mm to make up my own opinion. B)

Flare problems at 50mm have been reported since the start of this thread. A good way to avoid or reduce them is to make some shade with the hand when the sun or other strong light source stands just outside the frame. Here a halogen lamp at the left of the frame with and w/o cupping my left hand around the lens (Digital CL, MATE v1, 50mm, f/4, no hood). BTW the stock hood (12458) doesn't fix or reduce the issue.

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jdlaing said:

You’re right. Shooting into a light source explains all the rest. You deserved that result. Flare is caused by the photographer not the equipment.

The light source was outside the frame in my pics above. As for being banned from shooting into the light, you know what i think about that but you don't care about my opinion i guess and you're welcome to that :).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with caring about someone’s opinion. If you take risks with something that is a known hazard you accept the results. And outside the frame is not correct. For that flare to have occurred the light source had to be forward of the plane of the front element.

Edited by jdlaing
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

It has nothing to do with caring about someone’s opinion. If you take risks with something that is a known hazard you accept the results. And outside the frame is not correct. For that flare to have occurred the light source had to be forward of the plane of the front element.

I could not disagree more sorry. There should be zero risk when shooting outside of a light source, let alone with expensive lenses like Leica's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

As of today, and according to LR, the MATE is still my most used lens. By far.
One simple reason: it's invaluable when travelling (relatively) light.

Does it flare? Yes, mostly @ 50mm. Are there other 50s out there that flare less? Yes, several.
Is the occurrence of flare predictable? Yes, with a bit of practice.
Can it be worked around? Yes (see above), in many circumstances.
Did I lose "good" shots by working around the issue - or were some "good" shots ruined by failing to work around the issue? Yes, definitely - although newer cameras with higher resolution (resort to 35mm and crop) and EVF (check before pressing the shutter and change angle if needed) have reduced such instances.

BUT: the number of shots I lost due to flare - or forgetting to avoid flare - is much lower than those I would have lost by not being able to switch between 3 focal lenghts in a pinch (it seems that my back ends up being pressed against the wall quite often...)

So, yes, pretty smart, I'd say - but, as always, YMMV.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2019 at 7:51 AM, lct said:

I could not disagree more sorry. There should be zero risk when shooting outside of a light source, let alone with expensive lenses like Leica's.

So,  you're claiming that the light source in the posted image is behind the plane of the front element?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 2/4/2020 at 9:21 AM, Ecar said:

the number of shots I lost due to flare - or forgetting to avoid flare - is much lower than those I would have lost by not being able to switch between 3 focal lenghts in a pinch (it seems that my back ends up being pressed against the wall quite often...)

 

This is a good way to think about it which is probably why I've not sold mine. However, the flare at 50 is frequently not predictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2020 at 4:30 AM, jdlaing said:

You shoot into a light source you deserve what you get.

 

So being an experienced photographer you are well aware that there are plenty of lenses that allow one to shoot into a light source with reasonable if not excellent control of flare.  Often the best photos are made in more challenging lighting. 

The MATE's propensity to flare at 50mm is more complex than simply avoiding shooting into a bright light source. I have the E49 MATE. At 50mm I frequently have to shield the lens, get the light source well off to the side, or compromise composition by turning the lens well away from a bright light source (sun, lamp, very bright cloudy sky), far more than with any other 50 mm lens I have used. In this situation the flare is predictable so one can work around it.

However, not infrequently a stray light source has caused unexpected/unpredicted flare at 50mm with the MATE - reflected light such as sky off a pool of water for example, cloudy sky in the corner of the photo.  These are the situations where without an EVF one cannot plan to recompose or change to 35mm.  This flare is often more subtle, just enough loss of contrast in a critical part of the image to ruin it (but too subtle to be seen  on the cameras back screen). 

Hence my love-hate relationship with this lens (which I intend to keep).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarkP said:

 

So being an experienced photographer you are well aware that there are plenty of lenses that allow one to shoot into a light source with reasonable if not excellent control of flare.  Often the best photos are made in more challenging lighting. 

The MATE's propensity to flare at 50mm is more complex than simply avoiding shooting into a bright light source. I have the E49 MATE. At 50mm I frequently have to shield the lens, get the light source well off to the side, or compromise composition by turning the lens well away from a bright light source (sun, lamp, very bright cloudy sky), far more than with any other 50 mm lens I have used. In this situation the flare is predictable so one can work around it.

However, not infrequently a stray light source has caused unexpected/unpredicted flare at 50mm with the MATE - reflected light such as sky off a pool of water for example, cloudy sky in the corner of the photo.  These are the situations where without an EVF one cannot plan to recompose or change to 35mm.  This flare is often more subtle, just enough loss of contrast in a critical part of the image to ruin it (but too subtle to be seen  on the cameras back screen). 

Hence my love-hate relationship with this lens (which I intend to keep).

+1. I don't use my MATE on M cameras anymore for the reasons you state but its flare is easily predictable on mirrorless cameras or when using digital Ms in LV mode to be honest. Makes for a great 40-75/4 on the digital CL for example. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, lct said:

+1. I don't use my MATE on M cameras anymore for the reasons you state but its flare is easily predictable on mirrorless cameras or when using digital Ms in LV mode to be honest. Makes for a great 40-75/4 on the digital CL for example. 

I still use it on my M cameras for all of it's obvious adavantages. I agree with you about it on EVF cameras - it's a delight on the SL/SL2.These recent threads on the MATE have encouraged me to use it more as of late as it renders most beautifully.

Another photo as this is a photography forum...


Yesterday, back lane around the corner from where I live.
M10, 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!

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...