Leica M11 and Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 MATE - Questions

[skanga]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I can't easily find posts about the M11 and the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. I don't have either, just film Leicas currently.

Does anyone have experience with this combination?

Does the M11 have a built in profile for this lens? (if I can't find a coded lens).

Thanks

Sam

[caissa]

It’s an old lens, and not the best/sharpest. With the M11 you are better off with a 28 and a 50. (The choice is very wide, you will certainly find something suitable for your taste. Even CV has lenses that are much better than the MATE.) Or just with a single 35 if you prefer. (The Tri-Elmar is not sharp enough for the high resolution of the sensor.)

Or with an SL2 you are better off with the Leica SL 2.8/24-70. (Much better IQ and brighter lens). (I mention this camera because it offers IBIS, which is often very useful.)

But of course it is your choice.

 

You could buy a used M9 or M240 and if you use it with the MATE, the results will probably be very similar (and you save a lot of cash compared to the M11.) Maybe this is what you want.

Edited May 26, 2022 by caissa

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Sharp lens on M240, digital CL and Sony A7r2 mod. Same apparently on the M11 but i have little experience on this body. I don't feel any lack of resolution or contrast on the M11 so far. My copy is an uncoded v1 with vestigial built-in hood. Works normally in both RF and LV modes on the M11 where it is listed as "28-35-50 f/4.0 ASPH 11625" in the lens menu with 3 different options at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. No idea if there is any difference between those 3 options. The lens has the usual flare issue at 50mm. Also its "hidden" macro mode at 40mm car be handy but needs the LV mode as the RF is useless for macro. I will post a couple snaps on the M11 if i find the time. 

[skanga]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Sharp lens on M240, digital CL and Sony A7r2 mod. Same apparently on the M11 but i have little experience on this body. I don't feel any lack of resolution or contrast on the M11 so far. My copy is an uncoded v1 with vestigial built-in hood. Works normally in both RF and LV modes on the M11 where it is listed as "28-35-50 f/4.0 ASPH 11625" in the lens menu with 3 different options at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. No idea if there is any difference between those 3 options. The lens has the usual flare issue at 50mm. Also its "hidden" macro mode at 40mm car be handy but needs the LV mode as the RF is useless for macro. I will post a couple snaps on the M11 if i find the time. 

Thank you "lct" for the information.

Good to know that it is listed in the lens menu on the M11.

Looking forward to any other thoughts you have, and see your photos when you have a chance. I appreciate it.

Sam

Edited May 26, 2022 by skanga
text

[skanga]

4 hours ago, caissa said:

It’s an old lens, and not the best/sharpest. With the M11 you are better off with a 28 and a 50. (The choice is very wide, you will certainly find something suitable for your taste. Even CV has lenses that are much better than the MATE.) Or just with a single 35 if you prefer. (The Tri-Elmar is not sharp enough for the high resolution of the sensor.)

Or with an SL2 you are better off with the Leica SL 2.8/24-70. (Much better IQ and brighter lens). (I mention this camera because it offers IBIS, which is often very useful.)

But of course it is your choice.

 

You could buy a used M9 or M240 and if you use it with the MATE, the results will probably be very similar (and you save a lot of cash compared to the M11.) Maybe this is what you want.

Thank you.

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, caissa said:

(The Tri-Elmar is not sharp enough for the high resolution of the sensor.)

 

Roger Cicala would disagree.  The MATE may not be the latest and greatest, but it’s not a ‘crappy’ lens, and will work fine with the M11.

From Roger Cicala (lensrentals article)  **

Appendix: Why Perceptual Megapixels are Stupid

I get asked several times a week if this lens or that is ‘capable of resolving’ this number of megapixels. Some people seem to think a lens should be ‘certified’ for a certain number of pixels or something. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.

How it does work is this. Any image you capture is not as sharp as reality. Take a picture of a bush and enlarge it to 100%. You probably can’t see if there are ants on the leaves. But in reality, you could walk over to the bush (enlarge it if you will) and see if there are ants by looking at a couple of leaves.

What if I got a better camera and a better lens? Well, theoretically, things would be so good I could see the ants if I enlarged the image enough. MTF is somewhat of a measurement of how sharp that image would be and how much detail it contains. (The detail part would be the higher frequency MTF.) That would, of course, be the MTF of the entire system, camera, and lens.

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

You could kind of get that ‘perceptual megapixel’ thing if either the lens (or the camera) really sucks. Let say we were using a crappy kit zoom lens with an MTF of 0.3. With the old camera; 0.3 X 0.7 =.21. Let’s spend a fortune on the newer, better camera, and we get 0.3 X 0.9 = 0.27. So our overall system MTF only went up a bit (0.07) because the lens really sucked. But if it had been just an average lens or a better lens (let say the MTF was 0.6 or 0.8), we’d have gotten a pretty similar improvement.

If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images. If you ask something like ‘is my camera going to out resolve this lens’ you sound silly.

Roger’s rule: If you have either a crappy lens or crappy camera, improve the crappy part first; you get more bang for your $. I just saw a thread for someone wanting to upgrade to the newest 60-megapixel camera, and all of his lenses were average zooms. I got nauseous.  (Roger Cicala)

 

**
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

Jeff

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hehe yes or more simply put the lens on the camera and see what happens. In this case nothing. The M11 behaves the same way as low res cameras with more pixels that's all. As for the Mate, Erwin Puts used to say that it was better than previous Leica primes of same focal length which was perhaps exaggerated but fact is it is one of my sharper M lenses and no competent camera can change anything to that. 

[caissa]

Jeff.

The M11 is the highest resolution you can currently get. The MATE is not of very top end quality. So it is quite obvious what can be improved.

So obviously in this case Cicala would agree with me ...   (You seem to have misinterpreted Cicalas report.)

So with this lens I would save the money and use a “more average” camera.

So I prefer the 28mm primes. All of them are really excellent. And with the 50 mm lenses the choice is huge (from Apo to nocti, Leica or non).

 

The thread owner did not mention it, but in the end it is also about bang for buck. With the M11 and another prime you can get a lot more quality for your money. But it is your money ....

Edited May 27, 2022 by caissa

[skanga]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Roger Cicala would disagree.  The MATE may not be the latest and greatest, but it’s not a ‘crappy’ lens, and will work fine with the M11.

From Roger Cicala (lensrentals article)  **

Appendix: Why Perceptual Megapixels are Stupid

I get asked several times a week if this lens or that is ‘capable of resolving’ this number of megapixels. Some people seem to think a lens should be ‘certified’ for a certain number of pixels or something. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.

How it does work is this. Any image you capture is not as sharp as reality. Take a picture of a bush and enlarge it to 100%. You probably can’t see if there are ants on the leaves. But in reality, you could walk over to the bush (enlarge it if you will) and see if there are ants by looking at a couple of leaves.

What if I got a better camera and a better lens? Well, theoretically, things would be so good I could see the ants if I enlarged the image enough. MTF is somewhat of a measurement of how sharp that image would be and how much detail it contains. (The detail part would be the higher frequency MTF.) That would, of course, be the MTF of the entire system, camera, and lens.

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

You could kind of get that ‘perceptual megapixel’ thing if either the lens (or the camera) really sucks. Let say we were using a crappy kit zoom lens with an MTF of 0.3. With the old camera; 0.3 X 0.7 =.21. Let’s spend a fortune on the newer, better camera, and we get 0.3 X 0.9 = 0.27. So our overall system MTF only went up a bit (0.07) because the lens really sucked. But if it had been just an average lens or a better lens (let say the MTF was 0.6 or 0.8), we’d have gotten a pretty similar improvement.

If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images. If you ask something like ‘is my camera going to out resolve this lens’ you sound silly.

Roger’s rule: If you have either a crappy lens or crappy camera, improve the crappy part first; you get more bang for your $. I just saw a thread for someone wanting to upgrade to the newest 60-megapixel camera, and all of his lenses were average zooms. I got nauseous.  (Roger Cicala)

 

**
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

Jeff

Thanks Jeff (and Roger). 

Sam

[caissa]

This is a different discussion. I did not mention that there is a limit or anything similar. But it is very clear that an old lens with problems (reasonably good lens) and the top camera are not the combination to get the best results for a certain sum of invested money.

Not necessarily bad results, but nothing spectacular. Not anything which could not be done better with another lens (almost any modern prime).

 

It is quite simple, no endless discussions necessary. No help from an expert (Cicala) required.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by caissa

[Jeff S]

27 minutes ago, caissa said:

Jeff.

The M11 is the highest resolution you can currently ge  jt. The MATE is not of very top end quality. So it is quite obvious what can be improved.

So obviously Cicala would agree ...   (You seem to have misinterpreted Cicalas report.)

So with this lens I would save the money and use a “more average” camera.

So I prefer the 28mm primes. All of them are really excellent. And with the 50 mm lenses the choice is huge (from Apo to nocti, Leica or non).

 

The thread owner did not mention it, but in the end it is also about bang for buck. With the M11 and another prime you can get a lot more quality for your money. But it is your money ....

LOL.  I understood it just fine.  The MATE is a superb lens....only issue I had with it on modern M digitals was the flare tendency at 50mm.  Roger was talking about crap lenses. Even a reasonably good lens works better with a better sensor, says Roger, and the MATE is way better than just reasonably good.  As he wrote..."If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images"

Anyway, my own eyes are proof enough using the MATE on the M10...and making prints.  I have no doubt it would work as well or better on the M11.

Jeff

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jeff S

[lct]

A zoom lens is not a prime anyway. As far as M lenses are concerned, the Mate and the Wate are the only zoom lenses available so they have simply no competition.

[caissa]

If you like it, that is fine. I find it too slow for many use cases. I wonder how often you use it nowadays. For me it is not an interesting lens compared to other primes - so I never use it.

But tastes are different.

[caissa]

The MATE is no zoom. I am sure you know that.

As mentioned this is fruitless discussion. Simply use it if you think it is worth the time. (I don’t.).  Enjoy !

Edited May 27, 2022 by caissa

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, caissa said:

I find it too slow for many use cases.

Well, the M11 extends its use case in low light situations, compared to earlier generation sensors, or film.  

Jeff

[lct]

9 minutes ago, caissa said:

The MATE is no zoom. I am sure you know that.

Erwin Puts made the same mistake as mine then.

« From its optical design the Tri-Elmar is a true zoom lens »

(link)

[caissa]

Amazing that Puts makes such obvious mistakes. Maybe he corrected it in a later edition ?

I am not so keen on his works anymore. He had no good words for the SL cameras and lenses. And this is not very intelligent, but who cares. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by caissa

[lct]

Couple of boring snaps with M11 and Mate v1 below. They show what this combo can do at close to medium distance, nothing available at infinity sorry. Details in exif data. No cropping, sharpening or NR in PP. Bottom line the Mate is a sharp lens and the M11 does not get in the way somewhat expectedly.

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!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by lct

[skanga]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

Couple of boring snaps with M11 and Mate v1 below. They show what this combo can do at close to medium distance, nothing available at infinity sorry. Details in exif data. No cropping, sharpening or NR in PP. Bottom line the Mate is a sharp lens and the M11 does not get in the way somewhat expectedly.

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!

 

 

 

 

 

lct,

Thanks for posting images - I think the lens will be useful for my needs.

I typically shoot, people/on the street/indoor available light/documentary/photojournalism. I am usually flipping back and forth between 50 and 35 (and 28 comes in handy at times). What I need is to be able to work quickly, so eliminating lens changes would help.

If I do find a good VII I might try to get it coded somehow - by Leica? or anyone else who is trusted and good.

Thanks for your efforts.

Sam

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[skanga]

51 minutes ago, caissa said:

If you like it, that is fine. I find it too slow for many use cases. I wonder how often you use it nowadays. For me it is not an interesting lens compared to other primes - so I never use it.

But tastes are different.

Caissa,

Thanks for your comments and opinion. You are correct tastes are different, and how one needs to use the camera. As I've seen over the years, people use their Leicas for a wide range of subject matter. I always suggest that photographers use the equipment that is best for their needs.

Sam