MATE rear end compatibility question

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How that I have your attention... 😉

Could I swap the rear bayonet mount from an E55 MATE (version 1) with an E49 MATE (version 2)?  I want to put the 6-bit coded rear mount from the E55 version onto the E49 lens, and replace the E55's 6-bit-coded rear mount with the E49's uncoded mount.

Will such a swap be feasible and only require removal of the six standard M mount bayonet screws from each rear mount, followed by swapping places and reuse of the screws??  

Thank you for weighing in!

Edited March 3, 2020 by onasj

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

I think that it's possible.

I had a look at my Mate's rear mount, complicated mount specific to this special lens.

When you have them compare carrefully the two mounts before unscrewing.

I think also that must be first time I see this question of swapping mounts on Mates E49/E55.

Just do it, if you have the two MATE ,

then you would be the first if things go well  😉.

[onasj]

Thank you; I’ve been studying and overlaying photos of the two rear mounts and I *think* they are identical (even though they are different from all other M lens mounts, as you note).  I don’t have both lenses yet; if this were feasible it would help tempt me to get the second one, being offered to me...

[BernardC]

A word of warning: being (essentially) a zoom lens, the flange focal distance is especially critical. It's possible that neither lens will focus accurately with its new mount.

[Guest]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb BernardC:

A word of warning: being (essentially) a zoom lens, the flange focal distance is especially critical. It's possible that neither lens will focus accurately with its new mount.

Thanks for this warning.
Such DIY craft ideas make disappear any interest in second-hand market purchases.
If necessary send the valuable lens to Leica and keep your hands off.

[adan]

If it were any other lens, it can be done DIY, I expect.

However, even with regular lenses, when Leica does that work, they check the lens afterwards on an optical bench, to make sure collimation and focusing are still up to factory specs. It is not necessarily as simple as just reusing some screws.

The MATE, however, has an extra-complex mount, with the moving parts (including a section of pseudo-lens-flange) that change the framelines. Even though those are probably identical between the two versions, you just don't know what special internal connections can be fouled up by DIY. Perhaps there is a "Jesus-spring" (as in, you take out the screws, carefully lift off the flange..........and a spring flies out and disappears into a dark corner under your desk, and you yell "JESUS!")

I can see where a slight shift of that lever-like pseudo-flange while the mount is off could lead to: 1) poor frameline alignment (you end up, for example, with partial 50 and 35 lines showing when the lens is set to one of those focal lengths), or 2) the lens flange no longer mounts smoothly to the camera, or - worst case - 3) the lens mounts just fine, but then jams while on the camera, and you have to send lens and camera (now MATEd together ) in to Leica or some other servicer to get them separated.

[onasj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love the Jesus spring 😂 (and have experienced several such moments during my long history of tinkering).

As an alternative, since I own only one uncoded lens, and the M10 family politely switches to auto or manual lens detection upon detecting a coded or non-coded lens, is there any downside you could see to

1) Leaving the MATE uncoded, setting the M10 in lens detection settings to MATE, and then hoping GAS doesn't "force" me to buy another uncoded lens ever again.

vs.

2) Sending the MATE to Leica for 6-bit coding.

Thank you for your thoughts!

[adan]

1) sounds good to me - I've used this with "uncodable" 135 Tele-Elmars ever since getting the M10.

If you ever get another uncoded lens, then you can make the decision to send the MATE in for coding (or buy a second M10 for it).

"Never do today what you can put off till tomorrow!"

[onasj]

Brilliant—with this new one-M10-per-uncoded-lens strategy, we can finally integrate the signature feature of the Q with the design, form, and venerable history of the M. 
😂

[mdemeyer]

Why not send the other one to DAG and have him machine and code it?   It’s worth the modest cost for that lens.

[a.noctilux]

9 hours ago, onasj said:

I love the Jesus spring 😂 (and have experienced several such moments during my long history of tinkering).

As an alternative, since I own only one uncoded lens, and the M10 family politely switches to auto or manual lens detection upon detecting a coded or non-coded lens, is there any downside you could see to

1) Leaving the MATE uncoded, setting the M10 in lens detection settings to MATE, and then hoping GAS doesn't "force" me to buy another uncoded lens ever again.

vs.

2) Sending the MATE to Leica for 6-bit coding.

Thank you for your thoughts!

1 - I use the Mate uncoded with my digital M for years, and as the Mate is as good / as "flawed/flarey", using other lenses more, so I never need to send it for coding

...I use manual lens choice, in M10 menu, 3 choices for Tri-Elmar ( for Wate or Mate), I just choose "35" and let it there

2 - That is better choice if you want to use it at best

[onasj]

7 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

1 - I use the Mate uncoded with my digital M for years, and as the Mate is as good / as "flawed/flarey", using other lenses more, so I never need to send it for coding

...I use manual lens choice, in M10 menu, 3 choices for Tri-Elmar ( for Wate or Mate), I just choose "35" and let it there

2 - That is better choice if you want to use it at best

Thank you. But does the digital M (M10, ideally) still automatically detect which focal length is being used using the frame line position if you set the lens to manual detection, the way the M10 will do so with a 6-bit coded MATE?  I didn’t realize it requires that you choose a MATE focal length in manual lens selection mode.

Edited March 4, 2020 by onasj

[a.noctilux]

When the lens is not coded, the choice is user's manual choice (28 or 35 or 50 ).

The auto detection works only on coded lens (which I don't have), when coded lens in use, the EXIF must show the focal lenght in use

(detection on the frame lines selector position, clever ! )

[onasj]

Ahh... thank you for clarifying—I didn’t realize that!  In this case,  I will have to send it in to get coded (or try swapping bayonets...)

[a.noctilux]

3 hours ago, onasj said:

Ahh... thank you for clarifying—I didn’t realize that!  In this case,  I will have to send it in to get coded (or try swapping bayonets...)

in your shoes, I'd rather get it coded than swap mounts.