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

[DadDadDaddyo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My recollection aligns with that of Rick in CO, that the idea behind the pairings was to keep the frame lines from being too close together in the finder. This to avoid visual confusion. 

[jaapv]

The reason that Leica discontinued the MATE was that the glass for the front element was no longer available A new iteration would require a completely new design. The market would be minimal with zoom-lensed mirrorless all over the place, so the price would be astronomical.

[NigelG]

Possibly heretical but having owned a good copy of the MATE v2 and sold it (I know, I know) I preferred that the focal length "dance" meant that for me it worked as as 28/50.

I never shot 35 with it and currently don't own a single 35mm amongst maybe 10 28s/50s

[TomSchmitt]

1 hour ago, NigelG said:

Possibly heretical but having owned a good copy of the MATE v2 and sold it (I know, I know) I preferred that the focal length "dance" meant that for me it worked as as 28/50.

I never shot 35 with it and currently don't own a single 35mm amongst maybe 10 28s/50s

Same here. Rarely/never use 35, so a more compact(?) 28/50 would do.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

 The market would be minimal with zoom-lensed mirrorless all over the place, so the price would be astronomical.

There are also 35’s and 50’s all over the place, and the new Leica versions are priced astronomically, and in limited supply. I think you just described the perfect current Leica market. 😁

Jeff

[adan]

5 hours ago, Rick in CO said:

When 75mm was added, it compromised the 50 framelines, never have liked it as a primarily 50mm shooter, the M3 to M4R were much better, IMHO.

👍

In my view, the added 75 lines also compromised the 90mm framelines. Not because they are ever seen together, but because of the physical needs of the TWO overlapping "stencil cutouts" that form - and mask out - the framelines (see post 32). There needs to be a minimum spacing between the stencil slits cut in the masks, or the structural strength gets compromised. The post-1981 90mm lines were moved inward to separate them from the new 75 lines, and are really about right for a 100-105 lens.

The 90mm frames in the pre-1981 finders were more complete (boxes with corners) and slightly larger (more accurate framing - less unexpected junk around the edges in the final picture). Even with the new "optimized for 2m" lines in the M digitals, all my 90mm shots end up needing cropping to get what I saw - far more than with any of the other frames.

One can see the "old 90 frames" as used in the M3/M2 and also the M4/M5/M4-2 (but not M4-P) partway down this web page:

https://emulsive.org/articles/guides/find-your-perfect-leica-or-m-mount-film-camera-with-the-help-of-this-interactive-tool-and-reference-data#google_vignette

........

Also in my view, what has really compromised the M 50 framelines since 1986 (except maybe in the MA?) is the darn "missing line" across the bottom, to avoid obtructing the metering LEDs.

Now that I have started using a 50mm lens occasionally (for 40 years I didn't), I actually find the included 75 lines a useful "centering corrective" for that missing line, that I can glance at when aiming my 50 Summicron v3. If the center of my subject is centered in the 75 "box", it will be centered in the 50 picture as well.  

But I digress...

...............

My main objection to a zoom or vari-focal lens is that I end up with two (or many more) focal lengths that I am NOT using at the moment, hanging off the front of the camera. Ungainly and ungraceful.

Second objection is that, despite improvements, such lenses are still compromised themselves, compared to primes: distortion, flare, max. aperture, size. They may be adequate and convenient for "walk-around holiday snapshooting." But is "adequate for holiday snapshooting" really what great photography (and especially Leica photography) all about?

Since I'll always be carrying a 21 and 135 in a bag, I'd much rather toss in a light and compact 35 and/or 50 f/2.0, than lug around the compromised WATE.

50mm f/4.0? That's larger and heavier than a 90 f/2.8? Really?

98 years ago, even Leica managed to provide a faster 50 - in their very first effort.  

http://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/1/1d/M-90f28-ii.jpg

http://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/f/f9/5elmar35-2.jpg

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve had the Konica Dual 21-35 for years now and it is a very good lens. I accidentally ended up with a second one that sits on a shelf.

[lct]

1 hour ago, adan said:

[...] My main objection to a zoom or vari-focal lens is that I end up with two (or many more) focal lengths that I am NOT using at the moment, hanging off the front of the camera. Ungainly and ungraceful [...].

Reminds me of anti-zoom arguments half a century ago with all due respect Photogs who don't use some focal lenghts have little reason to buy a zoom or a varifocal lens or will buy one which covers the focal lenghts they need actually. As a 50mm main shooter i end up using the MATE on crop cameras mainly because 35/50/75 are the focal lenghts i use the most. But i'm glad not to have to juggle with multiple lenses when f/4 is fast enough for my needs. Please give me a Natural-Angle Tri-Elmar 35-50-75/4 "NATE" Mr Leica.

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!

 

 

[jaques]

I love the MATE lens on an M Body- it's so nice not to have to think about taking or changing any other lenses- and the way the frame lies move seems like the M was built to have MATE type lens on it. The image quality is perfect for many applications. More than good enough.

 

perhaps a good compromise would be a modern Leica 'Bi-Elmar' with just two focal lengths? Not sure which I'd choose though...  whatever it would be too expensive for me to ever buy now anyway...

 

MATE on M10 at 28mm

 

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 22, 2023 by jaques

[TomSchmitt]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:15 PM, Al Brown said:

Also do not forget, there WAS the Vario-Elmar-M 3.5-5.6/28-75mm ASPH, only three made. The project
was apparently discontinued in 2015 due to the complexity of the mechanical and visual design, according to Photographica Auction.

 

It was also wayyyy too big !

[Trielmar283550]

As the MATE shoots 90% of my pictures, a Tri-Elmarit or Tri-Summicron 28-50-90 would cover 99% of my needs.

[roydonian]

On 8/14/2023 at 2:43 PM, Jeff S said:

especially one with more controlled flare tendencies at 50mm.

I would have described the flare tendancy of my 28-35-50 as totally uncontrolled. at the 50mm setting, and annoying at the 35mm setting. As as working journalist I gave up trying to use this lens. I simply couldn't trust it, and didn't fancy the prospect of one day having to explain to my superiors why I'd failed to get a usable pic from my exensive Leica setup, while my rivals had got useable pics using less prestigious equipment or even point-and-shoots.

Edited October 30, 2023 by roydonian

[wizard]

Am 14.8.2023 um 11:10 schrieb TomSchmitt:

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.

Miles ahead? I used my MATE (second version) on an M10R a while ago, and was simply stunned by the image quality it delivered. Seriously, none of the shots I take would benefit from any higher IQ. What is it exactly that you do not like about the MATE's IQ?

[TomSchmitt]

4 minutes ago, wizard said:

Miles ahead? I used my MATE (second version) on an M10R a while ago, and was simply stunned by the image quality it delivered. Seriously, none of the shots I take would benefit from any higher IQ. What is it exactly that you do not like about the MATE's IQ?

It may be my copy. But in general my MATE is a bit ‘foggy / smeary’ and less crisp then even standard crons, not to speak of APO versions. Like a suttle pro-mist filter applied. In addition, complicated distortions at 28 and bad flare at 35 and particularly 50. I use 60mp, so that may contribute to the problem. Also I have the Version I of the MATE, but I understand optically is is identical to Version II.

[TomSchmitt]

14 minutes ago, roydonian said:

I would have described the flare tendancy of my 28-35-50 as totally uncontrolled. at the 50mm setting, and annoying at the 35mm setting. As as working journalist I gave up trying to use this lens. I simply couldn't trust it, and didn't fancy the prospect of one day having to explain to my superiors why I'd failed to get a usable pic from my exensive Leica setup, while my rivals had got useable pics using less prestigious equipment or even point-and-shoots.

Yup, I can relate to that. 35 is doable, but at 50 you better have the sun behind you …

[wizard]

vor 1 Minute schrieb TomSchmitt:

But in general my MATE is a bit ‘foggy / smeary’ and less crisp then even standard crons, not to speak of APO versions. Like a suttle pro-mist filter applied.

Mine was like that when new out of the box. I just could not get REALLY sharp shots. They were not blurred, just not as crisp as those taken with my other Leica lenses. I then sent the lens back to the mothership and complained. They calibrated the lens correctly, and voilá, it came back as a different lens, so to speak. Sharp and crisp at all apertures and focal length settings, just how it should be. My copy does not flare a lot, too, which is why I use it mostly without its dedicated lens hood. All in all, one of the most versatile and best Leica lenses in my stable, in particular for digital M cameras.

[TomSchmitt]

5 minutes ago, wizard said:

Mine was like that when new out of the box. I just could not get REALLY sharp shots. They were not blurred, just not as crisp as those taken with my other Leica lenses. I then sent the lens back to the mothership and complained. They calibrated the lens correctly, and voilá, it came back as a different lens, so to speak. Sharp and crisp at all apertures and focal length settings, just how it should be. My copy does not flare a lot, too, which is why I use it mostly without its dedicated lens hood. All in all, one of the most versatile and best Leica lenses in my stable, in particular for digital M cameras.

That is very interesting and encouraging. Maybe I shall send it back to the mothership, too. Pretty sure it’s not a focussing issue, because I tested it with LiveView and magnification and all. I just could not get it to be crisp. I bought a used version I but it looked like never ever used. That doe not mean of course that it has never been dropped etc. The more I think of it, the more I am inclined to CLA it and see how it goes.

[lct]

7 minutes ago, TomSchmitt said:

It may be my copy. But in general my MATE is a bit ‘foggy / smeary’ and less crisp then even standard crons, not to speak of APO versions. Like a suttle pro-mist filter applied. In addition, complicated distortions at 28 and bad flare at 35 and particularly 50. I use 60mp, so that may contribute to the problem. Also I have the Version I of the MATE, but I understand optically is is identical to Version II.

My v1 is sharp at 60 mp too. Your MATE would benefit from a CLA i suspect.

[TomSchmitt]

Just now, lct said:

My v1 is sharp at 60 mp too. Your MATE would benefit from a CLA i suspect.

Just reached out to Leica. You guys convinced me ! 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

34 minutes ago, roydonian said:

I would have described the flare tendancy of my 28-35-50 as totally uncontrolled. at the 50mm setting, and annoying at the 35mm setting. As as working journalist I gave up trying to use this lens. I simply couldn't trust it, and didn't fancy the prospect of one day having to explain to my superiors why I'd failed to get a usable pic from my exensive Leica setup, while my rivals had got useable pics using less prestigious equipment or even point-and-shoots.

I sold my second MATE through a reputable Leica dealer, and the first buyer returned it within the store return policy window due to unpredictable flare at 50mm, requiring the dealer to better disclose the characteristic and to sell it a second time.

Jeff