Thinking about a 28/35/50 Tri Elmar

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back when I was a previous Leica user - in the film days (sold all my leica cameras/lenses in the early '00s) - one of many Leica lenses I owned was the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar - now, I have discovered, known as a MATE.  I liked the concept but, in practice, didn't use it much, primarily because the fastest B&W film I shot was TriX and the only color film I shot was Velvia.  SO the f4 widest opening was limiting for my usual shooting style.

However, now rejoining Leica after 15 years of absence with a new (to me) M10, I'm thinking that the ISO capability of the camera makes the F4 limitation a non-issue.   I have the same focal lengths in primes but, again, I like carrying a single lens.  It didn't work well for me THEN but it might now.  So I'm wondering how other folks view the Mate/M10 ISO combination and any other issues that may be relevant.  

[wizard]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb Mikep996:

 It didn't work well for me THEN but it might now.

Oh yes, it will work very well now. You already pointed out the reasons yourself. There is a reason why the MATE is sought after long after Leica stopped making them. Actually, I think Leica should reintroduce this lens into their current lineup (which realistically they will not do for a variety of reasons). Of course, f4 is still f4, so separation capabilities are somewhat limited with this lens, but other than that it was and is a fabulous lens, which makes more sense than ever before. Plus it has a hidden macro function (see elsewhere in this forum) which I only learnt about just recently (you need liveview to use it, so it won't work with film cameras) and which seems to work well. An ideal travel lens for me!

Edited May 15, 2020 by wizard
typo corrected

[a.noctilux]

Hello Mike,

some opinions in this recent thread

I had used the MATE a lot for some years, less now as my wife adopted it since the day I wanted to trade the MATE to fund M10 in 2017.

No much to complain IQ wise ( using with care ...some flare 50, a bit distortion at 28 ).

Sometimes, I use it on M10, but much prefer the lighter ( so smaller ) primes 28/35/50 (Summarit-M 2.5/35/50 in most case).

F/4 is fine for M10 which at 6400 ISO can be used without fear of noise.

bonus hiden features ...

The too large finder blockage at 28mm is something to care about, while the 2.8/28mm even Summaron 5.6/28mm is more comfortable (and no finder blockage at all with the latter).

Flare at 50mm when contre-jour is something not avoidable.

But when we need the three-in-one without changing lens, MATE is the only candidate.

 

Be aware that some parts are not available if require repairing one day.

The focal selection is always vague with our unit.

Another question would be MATE "II" E49 or "I" E55 filter ?

Edited May 15, 2020 by a.noctilux

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, wizard said:

Actually, I think Leica should reintroduce this lens into their current lineup (which realistically they will not do for a variety of reasons). 

Don’t be so sure. Dr. Kaufmann said that he’d like to see it reintroduced (in a more modern version) so it could be used with the SL system.

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2019/07/breakfast-with-dr-andreas-kaufmann/

The current version is a complex design and subject to mechanical failures.  And unlike the WATE, it cannot be used as a true zoom (although there’s a discussion here about using it at 40mm).  It also has a tendency to flare at 50mm.

I’ve owned two, but always liked the idea a bit more than the execution, at least relative to equivalent primes.  A more modern design would intrigue.

Jeff

[jcraf]

I have one, a Mk1, 6 Bit coded.  If you get a coded one when you reacquire one, a digital M camera will automatically know which focal length you're set to, and record this in the EXIF data, which I think is neat. Aside from the occasional vagueness around the 28mm frame line engagement (well-documented) with the Mk1, both Mk1 and Mk2 perform identically optically.

I use it with the (correct) 12 592 hood, which may help with the occasional issue of flare, particularly at 50mm. I don't find it a particular problem though.

It is great lens; I have used it on everything from an M10, through an SL, to film Ms.  On digital Ms I have never found the f4 limiting in general use, and as Wizard says it's a great travel lens; I combine it with a little 90 Elmar-C when travelling light.

I'll never sell mine.

[Ko.Fe.]

This triplet  is nothing but clear evidence of RF failure for zoom. Second attempt to match SLRs are visoflex

With M10 sensor, where are tiny 28/35/50 slow primes. The only and significant reason for this mate is to avoid lens juggling and getting dust and other slit on sensor.

It is 2020 and only Leica Camera AG can't figure out how to implement dust shake.

 

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My most used travel lens, hands down.

Indeed, f/4 is not an issue in the vast majority of circumstances, thanks to the M10's higher ISO capabilities. TBH, it didn't feel too limiting on the M8 either...

Flare @ 50mm can be an issue, but there are workarounds when the light calls for it (change position, switch to 35mm and crop or use LV/EVF to preview).

One of the few lenses I couldn't part with - unless I find myself confined forever and unable to travel 😷

Edited May 15, 2020 by Ecar

[wizard]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb jcraf:

... the occasional issue of flare, particularly at 50mm. I don't find it a particular problem though.

Me neither. In fact, I have yet to experience it with my copy, which is a Mk II (I use the lens mostly with its designated hood, but in true contre-jour situations the lens hood will not help anyway). My copy is also mechanically top-notch, no issues whatsoever so far.

[jdlaing]

It’s an excellent lens. If you find a clean copy go for it.

[onasj]

I reported the undocumented 40 mm macro "feature" of this lens linked (below) and find the MATE to be a true mechanical marvel.  You are right that the f/4 limitation's isn't as significant with today's high-ISO performance (especially on the M10M!).  You won't be able to get those razor-thin depth of focus shots with the MATE but it is probably the most versatile M lens around— 28, 35, 50, macro, reasonably small, reasonably light, and optically good to excellent.  Plus they are getting harder and harder to get.

 

[Mikep996]

How does the non-coded MATE work with the M10 as far as whatever image correction is involved in the Leica system?  I see in the Lens menu that there is a selection for each of the focal lengths of a Tri Elmar individually.   So, as I understand it,  for optimum quality you have to manually select the focal length you are using in the menu when you switch between them.  That would not be something I would want to bother with.  Does it make a noticeable difference quality-wise if the lens/focal length is selected or not?

Were any MATEs coded or were they out of production before digital Leica's/coding?

Edited May 16, 2020 by Mikep996

[Good To Be Retired]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

How does the non-coded MATE work with the M10 as far as whatever image correction is involved in the Leica system?  Does it make a noticeable difference quality-wise if the lens/focal length is selected or not?

 

Couldn't say on the M10, but on my M240 I can't see that it makes a noticeable difference.  I suppose there must be something, but if you can live without the focal length in the exif I haven't found any reason to worry with it.  Others of course may disagree, but I've stopped bothering with it.

[jdlaing]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

How does the non-coded MATE work with the M10 as far as whatever image correction is involved in the Leica system?  I see in the Lens menu that there is a selection for each of the focal lengths of a Tri Elmar individually.   So, as I understand it,  for optimum quality you have to manually select the focal length you are using in the menu when you switch between them.  That would not be something I would want to bother with.  Does it make a noticeable difference quality-wise if the lens/focal length is selected or not?

Were any MATEs coded or were they out of production before digital Leica's/coding?

The last batch was factory coded. A sticker was applied to the box. I got mine from Ken Hansen.

[Mikep996]

3 hours ago, Good To Be Retired said:

Couldn't say on the M10, but on my M240 I can't see that it makes a noticeable difference.  I suppose there must be something, but if you can live without the focal length in the exif I haven't found any reason to worry with it.  Others of course may disagree, but I've stopped bothering with it.

Yeah, EXIF data is not important to me at all; I was only concerned with the image itself; thanks!

[Good To Be Retired]

4 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

Yeah, EXIF data is not important to me at all; I was only concerned with the image itself; thanks!

Actually, if you're looking at buying one, I could do a quick and dirty A/B test and post the raw files to Dropbox.   You could decide for yourself.  Won't be until Monday though, it's raining like crazy right now.  If you're in Texas now you are probably familiar with the problem.  It's pouring in Dallas.

By the way, if that was you inquiring about rangefinder calibration, THE best set of instructions on the web are Mr. Thompson's at 

 

I've done this on two bodies so far and it's dead simple once you get into it.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[Mikep996]

The AB test would be very helpful if you have the time/inclination to do it.  Understand re the weather, heavy thunder/lightning kept us awake and the house shaking for a good while here in San Antonio  last night!  And YES, it IS good to be retired!  

Edited May 17, 2020 by Mikep996

[Good To Be Retired]

19 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

The AB test would be very helpful if you have the time/inclination to do it.  Understand re the weather, heavy thunder/lightning kept us awake and the house shaking for a good while here in San Antonio  last night!  And YES, it IS good to be retired!  

Ok, the sun peeked out a bit and I got some raw images.  Since clouds were coming and going there is some difference in exposure but it might still be useable for your purposes.

This IS NOT a lens test and no attempt has been made to employ anything remotely resembling a valid scientific procedure.  It's some snapshots that may or may not be useful for evaluating the question under consideration.

Images with and without correction turned on at 50mm and 28mm and f4, 5.6, 8, and 11.  UV/IR Cut filter attached.  Preset white balance from Passport.  Point of focus was the vertical lines immediately below the owl's right eye.

Live View focusing/tripod/direct (mostly) sun/preset white balance, and a target that may not be suitable for some purposes such as it won't help with evaluating something like barrel/pincushion distortion.  That's not something I worry about very much.   I was doing something with a 50mm Summicron at the same time so I threw that in also.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gmrheviky2100vr/AAAe2rq7rFN_SUbWR3zCu58ga?dl=0

I haven't used dropbox in a long while, so I hope it works ok.  You don't have to log in or anything, just hit the download button.  Unfortunately, I think it's going to require downloading individual files instead of the containing folder.

Incidentally, I have a tendency to visit Mexico, San Antonio, and the UK as frequently as possible.  Or at least I did till the current health deal got started.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[Mikep996]

GREAT STUFF, THANKS!!!!!!    Frankly, I can't see any difference between corrected/uncorrected even at high magnification!  Maybe if I studied every aspect of all the photos I might eventually find something but I doubt it...PLUS, I never do that!   Pretty convincing that the correction is not vital for that lens!

Normally, we would be in the UK (Bath) now (mid-May through October) but with the Corona thing, there was no point in going there to be locked down so we're planning (hoping) to head over at the end of June. 

[Stein K S]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:43 PM, wizard said:

Me neither. In fact, I have yet to experience it with my copy, which is a Mk II (I use the lens mostly with its designated hood, but in true contre-jour situations the lens hood will not help anyway). My copy is also mechanically top-notch, no issues whatsoever so far.

Hi and thanks! God to hear that there is at least one or two more owners of this lens not being troubled by flare at 50mm 😉 Frankly, I have really tried some ¨torture testing¨ on this , but only getting flare I would probably also get with a prime. Mine is a 49mm... 389xxxx.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mikep996]

LIFE is TOO Funny!!!  Thanks to the excellent info from everyone and especially the pics from "Good To Be Retired," I put in an offer on an Ebay MATE which was accepted.  

But wait, there's more...;)

Turns out that the seller is "Good to be Retired!  Frankly, I'm VERY impressed that in his posts here re the MATE, including the numerous pics he posted on dropbox that convinced me to purchase one (again), he did not mention that he had one for sale on Ebay.  Pretty cool!  I had no idea it was his when I was searching; I chose it because his listing had a thorough explanation that included the foibles of the MATE as opposed to just a typical "sales pitch."  THANKS, GTBR! I'm looking forward to my 2nd go-round with a MATE.  This time, due to the M10's ISO as opposed to my film era Leicas w/triX or Velvia, I have no worrys that F4 is too slow!  

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Mikep996