The case for a Leica Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 (MATE) successor

[TomSchmitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own most of the nice Leica lenses, yet most often my Tri-Elmar MATE is glued to my M11 or M11M while roaming through a new city. It does everything but ‘magic’ or low light or shallow DOF, for that I occasionally swap to Lux or Noct. It does everything else though, super underrated lens IMHO.

Yet there is a problem: While the MATE’s IQ was more than acceptable in it’s production time between 1998 and 2007 (Erwin Putts opinion, and mine), the current Leica lenses as well as Voigtlander Ultrons, Skopars and particulary APO’s are now miles ahead in virtually all aspects of IQ. The gap has widened and become too big.

So Leica and Voigtlander: How about a successor? Do the same thing, only updated to a current optical design.

Or - even better - do this:

Make a 24-70 F4 zoom, same size, gladly smaller, and scrap the expensive and mechanically complicated frame line - coupling. I believe that was the reason why Leica stopped production in the first place. Too complicated and expensive.So give us a fluid zoom, no frame line coupling.

We can either

• patch focus initially using the rangefinder
• or zone focus when shot wide at F8
• or focus using the EVF/LCD with or without peaking

and then finish by framing/composing using EVF/LCD.

I get it, you purists: If I want mirrorless experience, don't buy an M. Buy an SL or Q. M is for rangefinder / prime lens purists, not zooms and EVF. Yet you did it 25 years ago, didn't you ??

So market it as an offering specifically for those weak EVF/LCD shooters to keep the M purists sane.

A 24-70 would btw. go into 100mm territory with 40MP crop on an M11 sensor, turning it into a super-zoom. And if Leica ever does a M version with built in EVF, here would be your first lens as a kit as a gateway drug, AND it'd also be a compact zoom for SL with M-L adapter.

Sell it to us for 7000 (Leica) and 1500 (Voigtlander) or - as an Voigtlander APO version -  for 1800.

Is it just me or? What do y’all think ?

[a.noctilux]

👍

very good idea/suggestion.

 

I use for many years the first Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50.

I doubt that a 24-70 for M Leica is in the planned lens.

- this would be bigger than we think

- even f/2.8 is not enough to sell for M user, so f/4 or f/2 are just that too slow or too big/heavy

- the demand level would not be enough at Leica price

 

As end note, I will not be buyer myself if one 24-70 M (Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, xArtisans, etc.) reach market.

 

I do use many SLR zooms (20-35, 24-50, 25-50, 28-50, 35-70) adapted to my Leica M, sometimes.

Very handy and good enough for my use.

Edited August 14, 2023 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

I think that for "roaming through a new city" the IQ of the MATE is just fine - perhaps a bit too much barrel distortion at 28mm and at-times-unpredictable flare at 50mm.  It is such a mechanically complex lens that it, and the WATE, are unlikely to be re-designed and made again.

However, I would be very happy with a 2.8/28-50 Bi-Elmar-M 🙂

Edited August 14, 2023 by MarkP

[SiggiGun]

I agree ! 2 years ago I the change to participate a roundtable discussion with P. Karbe. At the end, he asked everyone “what lens should we (re)build?

my answer was : replace the MATE by a Bi-Summicron 28-50mm. He agreed, say “yes! Now we should convince the Marketing department…

so, we can hope!

 I used it especially when traveling. 

[Jeff S]

Zero interest in a zoom.  But a mechanically less complex bi- or tri- elmar would be welcome, especially one with more controlled flare tendencies at 50mm.  I would even like a 35/50 design, given my most used focal lengths, although many might think this silly.

Jeff

[Rick in CO]

2 hours ago, SiggiGun said:

I agree ! 2 years ago I the change to participate a roundtable discussion with P. Karbe. At the end, he asked everyone “what lens should we (re)build?

my answer was : replace the MATE by a Bi-Summicron 28-50mm. He agreed, say “yes! Now we should convince the Marketing department…

so, we can hope!

 I used it especially when traveling. 

I appreciate the Tri-Elmar as is, but think it would definitely benefit from a refresh for digital sensors.  28 and 35 are very close, I would go for an updated 28/50 if the above discussed issues could be resolved.

For travel, I like the depth of field it allows - Stockholm Palace Lion 28mm at f4, Malbork Castle 35mm at f5.6, both with M10R.  Both processed in Photoshop.

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!

[Rick in CO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An example at 50mm f6.8:

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!

[TomSchmitt]

5 hours ago, MarkP said:

I think that for "roaming through a new city" the IQ of the MATE is just fine - perhaps a bit too much barrel distortion at 28mm and at-times-unpredictable flare at 50mm.  It is such a mechanically complex lens that it, and the WATE, are unlikely to be re-designed and made again.

However, I would be very happy with a 2.8/28-50 Bi-Elmar-M 🙂

I agree! Although the WATE is mechanically less complex I believe, because it lacks the frameline coupling, because there are no 16-18-21 frame lines to begin with. That's why it's still in production.  So it's 'only' a 3-step zoom.

A 28-50 Bi-Elmar would be great, you are right that we don't need the 35 with todays 'cropability'. I fear though that a F2.8 might turn it into a big lens, and that's not what we want, right ?

[Robert Blanko]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb SiggiGun:

I agree ! 2 years ago I the change to participate a roundtable discussion with P. Karbe. At the end, he asked everyone “what lens should we (re)build?

my answer was : replace the MATE by a Bi-Summicron 28-50mm. He agreed, say “yes! Now we should convince the Marketing department…

so, we can hope!

 I used it especially when traveling. 

24 / 50 mm Bi-APO-Summicron please, Mr. Karbe! 🙂

[TomSchmitt]

6 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

👍

very good idea/suggestion.

 

I use for many years the first Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50.

I doubt that a 24-70 for M Leica is in the planned lens.

- this would be bigger than we think

- even f/2.8 is not enough to sell for M user, so f/4 or f/2 are just that too slow or too big/heavy

- the demand level would not be enough at Leica price

 

As end note, I will not be buyer myself if one 24-70 M (Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, xArtisans, etc.) reach market.

 

I do use many SLR zooms (20-35, 24-50, 25-50, 28-50, 35-70) adapted to my Leica M, sometimes.

Very handy and good enough for my use.

I doubt it, too. It has to be a 28-50 F4 or maybe include 35, but F4, otherwise it's gonna be too big and expensive. This lens would be designed to shoot around F5.6-F8, wide DOF, optically comparable with shooting the same F-stop with a Lux or Cron. F8 is the great equalizer ;). This has been done many times by many manufacturers. It's not rocket science. Again, sound like a Voigtlander comfort zone to me.

[TomSchmitt]

Just now, Robert Blanko said:

24 / 50 mm Bi-APO-Summicron please, Mr. Karbe! 🙂

F2 would be too big, I fear ...

[TomSchmitt]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Zero interest in a zoom.  But a mechanically less complex bi- or tri- elmar would be welcome, especially one with more controlled flare tendencies at 50mm.  I would even like a 35/50 design, given my most used focal lengths, although many might think this silly.

Jeff

Surely not silly, but with M11's 60MP I tend to appreciate gaps in focal lengths steps due to 'cropability'. A 28 with 1.3 crop gives you a 40MP file on an M11. Yes, it's not the same (DOF, compression, etc.), but I don't shoot 35 primes much these days. I use 28 cron or lux cropped and have a lighter bag. SO I'd still prefer a 28-50 rather than a 35-50.

[TomSchmitt]

4 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

24 / 50 mm Bi-APO-Summicron please, Mr. Karbe! 🙂

YESSSSS

[adan]

Short version: So long as Leica is making and selling film Ms, they will never introduce an M-mount lens that cannot work just as well and fully on film as it does on a digital M. They are not going to make the film cameras and their users "second-class citizens" in the M system.

Longer version: I think Leica simply has a philosophical commitment to the idea that any lens they make "for the M system" must be at least nominally functional with any M camera, film or digital, inclusively, from the M3 through MP/M6 mkII (as well as the digitals).

They may nudge up against the edge of the envelope, as with the 75 f/1.25 and 90 f/1.5 (arguably tricky to focus without digital TTL viewing, or at least a magnifier). Or by adding close-focus ability beyond the traditional RF limit of 0.7m - but still as fully functional on an M3 as a 1970 35 or 50 lens, down to that limit.

But an entire lens that cannot work, throughout its focal-length/zoom range, on a film M, with framelines, just won't happen. Even the 16-18-21 can be used on an M3, given the external "Frankenfinder," and the DOF of such a wide f/4 lens.

Leica doesn't have to - so they won't. At least until they abandon making any film Ms at all.

Edited August 14, 2023 by adan

[lct]

I can't seem to perceive the IQ gap the OP's referring to and i'm not sure which lenses the MATE is compared to this way. Also a modern M lens is supposed to work in RF and LV mode the same brilliant way so the lack of frame lines would be a deal breaker for me and i'm not a purist at all so go figure how purists would react to such an idea. This said, i would like to see fixed the flare issue at 50mm but i would not pay Leica prices for a new 28-35-50 or even 28-50, let alone 24-50. A compact 35-50-75 could interest me though but a 24-(?)-70 would be too big or too slow, i suspect, and there are neither 24mm nor 70mm frame lines in current M cameras anyway.

Edited August 14, 2023 by lct

[MarkP]

8 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

24 / 50 mm Bi-APO-Summicron please, Mr. Karbe! 🙂

No. 24mm requires external optical or electronic viewfinder with M cameras.

Although I am very fond of the 24mm focal length.

[rcusick]

May I point out that the R zooms work perfectly and outperform most M primes… The 21-35 is bitingly sharp. 

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 August 15, 2023 by rcusick

[TomSchmitt]

5 hours ago, lct said:

I can't seem to perceive the IQ gap the OP's referring to and i'm not sure which lenses the MATE is compared to this way. Also a modern M lens is supposed to work in RF and LV mode the same brilliant way so the lack of frame lines would be a deal breaker for me and i'm not a purist at all so go figure how purists would react to such an idea. This said, i would like to see fixed the flare issue at 50mm but i would not pay Leica prices for a new 28-35-50 or even 28-50, let alone 24-50. A compact 35-50-75 could interest me though but a 24-(?)-70 would be too big or too slow, i suspect, and there are neither 24mm nor 70mm frame lines in current M cameras anyway.

You seem to have a great copy !! I can only speak to the comparison to the 28 Elmarit and 28 Lux, the the Leica 35 FLE V1, the Voigtlander 35 Ultron F2  and Nokton 1.5 and 35 APO as well as Leica's 50 Lux ASPH I. All of these primes outperform my 2 copies of the MATE by a mile in their respective f-stops. In all focal lengths they are less contrasty and even stopped down a bit 'hazy / foggy' or less crisp compared to them, with sharpness fall-off towards the corners. At 28 there is in addition a lot of distortion, at 50 in addition super prone to flare. It is at all settings and focal lengths the weakest lens in my portfolio, which is kinda expected due to its nature as a compromise, as most older 'zooms' are. This is my whole point: Modern zooms are as good as primes (for example the SL 24-90), so pls., Leica, update it.

[lct]

5 minutes ago, rcusick said:

May I point out that the R zooms work perfectly and outperform most M primes…

My R zooms are very good but don't outperform my Leica primes TBH. They can work in LV mode on M cameras but not in RF mode and they don't bring up frame lines contrary to the MATE they cannot replace for this reason.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rcusick]

To be clear - I’m referring to the true Leica zooms - the F4 zooms and the 2.8 zooms.  Also - any m zoom going forward would probably be like the wate - ie non range finder coupled.  

Edited August 15, 2023 by rcusick