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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, rcusick said:

[...] any m zoom going forward would probably be like the wate - ie non range finder coupled

There are no ultra wide frame lines in M cameras so the WATE can hardly be compared to the MATE from this viewpoint.

[Robert Blanko]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb MarkP:

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

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

That’s indeed a minor disadvantage that there are no 24mm framelines. However, with some experience one may get used to estimating the 24mm framelines between the 28mm framelines and the physical outer frame of the viewfinder window. I got used to this when using my 24 Elmar a lot during summer holiday for landscape and city walks.

Maybe Leica could make two versions: a 28/50 and a 24/50 APO Bi-Summicron. 🙂

[SiggiGun]

Coming back to thé « Summicron vs. Elmar » question. Honestly I don’t need f2.0, f4.0 is fine. Especially when size becomes an issue. Better small and light. … and consistent with the 21SEM and 90Macro, if needed 

[lct]

In case of a remake of the MATE, Leica will keep its close-up capabilities without hiding them  hopefully. This snap to show that the so-called IQ gap between the MATE and current primes is not that wide if any (Digital CL + MATE at 40mm, FF and crop).

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]

MATE in black & white, same combo. IQ gap?

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]

2 hours ago, lct said:

In case of a remake of the MATE, Leica will keep its close-up capabilities without hiding them  hopefully. This snap to show that the so-called IQ gap between the MATE and current primes is not that wide if any (Digital CL + MATE at 40mm, FF and crop).

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!

 

 

Oh wow, that’s impressive ! I use the close-up gap for food photography, but this here is really something !

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Erwin Puts used to say that in many shooting situations the performance of the MATE is equal to that of current Leica lenses of 28, 35 and 50mm focal length. Puts wrote this 20 years ago if memory serves, but as far as my current lenses are concerned it remains true for a good part, with the exception of propensity for flare at 50mm which has been a shortcoming of the MATE since its launch.

[Jeff S]

The discussion regarding a new MATE, or other multi-focal design, is about as old as some of Puts’ writings.  (He also mentioned some weakness/distortion at 28mm.)

 

If there ever is a new MATE, besides solving the flare issue I cited earlier, I would appreciate the sequential configuration of focal lengths from 28 to 50, rather than the more awkward current design.

Jeff

[a.noctilux]

The awkward focal length selection 35/50/28 is there to select the framelines.

This very complicated mechanism was there to continue the compatibility.

This complication is one of the first thing to be repaired.

[Guest]

How would a 24-70 zoom work with the M's bright frames? And would f/4 not be a bit slow?

Edited August 15, 2023 by JohnSmithsOtherBrother

[adan]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

If there ever is a new MATE, besides solving the flare issue I cited earlier, I would appreciate the sequential configuration of focal lengths from 28 to 50, rather than the more awkward current design.

Jeff

I'm afraid that has been "baked into" the M system since 1954.

The M3 was set up to engaged 3 (as the name says) framelines - 135, 50, 90 - in that order (short flange, medium flange, longest flange). That ordering is hard-wired mechanically.

As Leica added additional frames in the viewfinder, they had to conform to the same basic mechanically hard-wired pattern: 35mm replaced 135 in the M2, and was paired with 135mm in the M4 and ever since. When Leica added the 28 and 75 frame lines in the M4-P et seq. - those also had to use the existing mechanical sequence - 35/135, 50(75), and 90(28).

Therefore, mechanically, 35 and 28 will always have to fall on opposite sides of 50mm, to correctly bring up the right framelines.

35 - 50 - 28 = 35 <> 50 <> 28. To get from 35 to 28, we have to pass through the 50mm setting.

There is no way around the original MATE's awkward linkage (except an even more awkward linkage) - unless and until framelines are displayed electronically keyed by 6-bit coding.

And that won't happen until Leica ceases to make the mechanical, battery-independent film Ms (see my previous post). A battery-free MA can't make any use at all of 6-bit coding or an LCD frameline system. Therefore Leica won't offer an M lens that requires it.

[Jeff S]

I should have known that, as I understand the mechanical masks, but didn’t think about the related lens impact.  Mark’s M8 anatomy is etched in my memory.

 

 

Jeff

[lct]

48 minutes ago, adan said:

When Leica added the 28 and 75 frame lines in the M4-P et seq. - those also had to use the existing mechanical sequence - 35/135, 50(75), and 90(28).

Therefore, mechanically, 35 and 28 will always have to fall on opposite sides of 50mm, to correctly bring up the right framelines.

Why not 35/135, 50/28, 90/75? Just curious.

[adan]

lct posts as I write - but my comment just applies all the more.  

It is certainly true that - had Leica been thinking of a possible MATE 20 years in the future, when they assigned the 28/75 lines - they could have paired the 28 lines with the 50 and the 75 lines with the 90. Which would make a simpler 35-28/50 MATE operation.

However, I believe the 28 lines had already been paired with 90mm (conceptually, but not yet installed) as early as 1972 or so. Because the 28s from the v.2 on worked correctly once the 29/90 lines were eventually available 9 years later in the M4-P. Which left 75 with the 50 as the only remaining possible pairing (unless one wanted three lines showing simultaneously).

With regard to predicting the future, Leitz/Leica won one and lost one.  

[lct]

10 minutes ago, adan said:

It is certainly true that - had Leica been thinking of a possible MATE 20 years in the future, when they assigned the 28/75 lines - they could have paired the 28 lines with the 50 and the 75 lines with the 90. Which would make a simpler 35-28/50 MATE operation.

Without even thinking of a possible MATE, i wonder why Leica did not choose 28/50 and 75/90 pairs of lines in the M4-P but i may be missing something.

[adan]

5 hours ago, lct said:

i wonder why Leica did not choose 28/50 and 75/90 pairs of lines in the M4-P but i may be missing something.

Already answered. By the time of the M4-P, it was too late to make that choice.

The choice had already been made by default 9 years before, with the 1972 introduction of the 28mm Elmarit v.2. Keyed for 90mm lines. Done and dusted.

Changing it again for the M4-P would have made the existing 28s obsolete (or required them all to have new mounts installed). So the camera was designed to suit the existing lens mounts.

In 1972, a "75mm" lens was probably not even on the drawing table/computer screen, so not part of the possible combos considered.

Unless, of course, one thinks Leitz could see into the future and had a "road map" covering 10-25 years ahead. I don't think so, myself.

That was the exact era (peaking about 1976-77) when Leitz's "road map" (if anything) was to kill off the M system altogether, surrendering to the "SLR tsunami."

[Kiwimac]

I owned it when I shot film M cameras and liked its versatility.

I would like a modern version but I am not holding my breath; maybe the 'bi elmar' concept could work though. 35 and 75 would be handy.

[a.noctilux]

19 minutes ago, Kiwimac said:

35 and 75 would be handy.

While waiting I use for some years now, in place of MATE, bi-Summarit-M 35-75 in two pieces (I know not the same thing 😉),

but why not.

Only using filters on 2.5/35 (E39) and 2.5/75 (E46) has room for better design.

When I use 2.5/50 in place of 75, all well with E39 filter.

[Rick in CO]

Leica provided framelines, at least initially, that would minimally interfere with each other; ie. 35/135 and 28/90.  

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.

I always hoped that as part of their a'la carte program Leica would allow custom selection of framelines - ie. 28/50/35 or 90/50/35, usw.

Would be motivated to upgrade from my presently perfect M10R to an M11 with a 50mm only mask - no 75mm frameline!

Back when using my Technika 70 I appreciated having an un-cluttered viewfinder with the wide angle and normal frames always present, and the dial-in telephoto frameline.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M. Krieten]

My wish would be a bifocal 21/35mm lens.
That already existed with the M bayonet, although not from Leica.