Leica MEV1: Best mirrorless for M lenses?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting to see how the MEV1 behaves with so-called difficult lenses.
135mm and 15mm lenses are not a problem on the MEV1, as shown above, but some lenses are not recommended by Leica.
One of them is the Summicron 50/2 Dual Range # 11918 from the 1960s.
It is a lens based upon the version 2 of the Summicron 50/2 Rigid # 11818 with 7 elements in 6 groups, which focuses normally from 1m to infinity. To that normal range, the DR variant adds a closeup range from 0.5m to 1m that needs special goggles to access it with a rangefinder.
Those goggles are not necessary when using an EVF, be it with the M11 + Visoflex2 or the MEV1. Suffice it to press the bearing ball of the lens to access the closeup range and focus accordingly.
The lens is not recommended by Leica though. It is considered « incompatible » in the instruction manual of both M11 and MEV1 cameras. Yet, when mounted and unmounted with care, it works perfectly well on those bodies. Suffice it to mount and unmount the lens carefully at the infinity position. By carefully i mean without hitting the roller cam of the camera. This way, the lens gives the same results as the Rigid v2 from 1m to infinity, but thanks to the closeup range, it does the same from 1m to 0.5m too.
Warning: In case of damage to the lens or the camera doing this, the damage should not be covered by the Leica warranty nomally, since the lens is considered incompatible by Leica.
Couple of snaps with MEV1 + Summicron 50/2 DR. Handheld. Details in exif data.

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!

[Tailwagger]

On 10/31/2025 at 11:25 PM, lct said:

Our colleague @Tailwagger might help you better in such a decision.

Doubtful, as so much depends on how/what you intend to shoot and the style of result you're expecting to come away with.  I can really only speak to my own methodology, likes and desires, but perhaps detailing them might be slightly of use. 

My thing revolves around wandering around, happening across something interesting and imagining the end result (or really a set of possible end results) before the camera ever leaves the bag. I.e. I am accidentally deliberate. Once I run across something that interests me,  I don't compose via the finder, I compose in my head and use the finders to align the camera to that mental image.  I rarely deal with moving subjects, but when I do, the methodology is essentially the same.  I see the scene, frame the background, set and appropriate aperture for DoF, prefocus and wait for subject to arrive at the appropriate spot. In this situation I tend to favor the OVF, as EVF display lag often precludes nailing the subject in the optimal location.  But on the whole, I use the M as the moral equivalent of an easy-to-hike-a-few-miles-with-near-medium-format-quality camera. 

I dislike looking through any finder -optical, electronic or otherwise- any longer than necessary.  What this translates to, as far as EVFs are concerned, is that I don't particularly care about any extra mega pixels of resolution, nor do I care much about magnification, size of the viewport, etc.  I know what I want before I get there. The time spent with the EVF is simply making sure the corners are where they need to be, things are level and square, exposure seems appropriate.  I'm not interested in re-examining the scene in detail; I'm now at a stage where I only care about the general shapes and how they are lining up.  Thus modest improvements to EVF resolution (low light noise aside) really is not all that important to me. 

What I do care about passionately is having an accurate focus point, particularly with ultra wides where in deep scenes one is trying to maximize focus around portions of the frame.  Hence, I focus via OVF and frame via EVF.  When I am using a 75mm+ lens, rare these days, for portrait or what have you, I do check and potentially adjust focus with the EVF after rough focus via the OVF. But overall, the OVF grants me sufficient focus accuracy without worry 95% of the time, whereas the EVF provides a level of accuracy in framing that I personally cant achieve with the OVF.  Their strengths are complimentary and that is why over the years I have grown to be dependent on having both available. 

Nothing groundbreaking but the shot below comes to mind as an example of a scene I couldn't have pulled off without both finders. The goal for this photograph was to maximize the tradeoff between foreground sharpness of the tree bark while maintaining sufficient acuity of the silos, yet allowing background hill, tree line and clouds to fall off a touch.  The focus point was therefore set relatively close via OVF, on the sawn off edge of the highest log, after which the scene was framed via the EVF at waist level all while balancing on a pile of somewhat unstable logs.  Framing along with waist level viewing was crucial for keeping the silos as vertical as possible while at the same time ensuring all the elements of the composition where present including the cloud formation producing a V into the corners.  Could this have been accomplished Evf-only?  Perhaps, but it would have required much more fiddling with aperture, zooming and focus, which given the precarious nature of my shooting position would have been too much of a risk/PITA to attempt given my advancing years. At 16-21mm (cant quite recall the FL of this shot) OVF only would have made this juggling act impossible, at least for me. 

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!

M11 WATE f8

I was at one time a very strong advocate of a reduced cost EV only M, but over the years I have moderated my position on this.  Whereas earlier having to move between two finders was a chore, I have come to find that dividing the steps... focus (OVF), frame (EVF), shoot... has made my process more repeatable and accurate in various dimensions.  It does indeed take some time to develop an affinity for this approach, but I can honestly say that it is utterly second nature now and not the slightest burden save in situations requiring multiple exposures at speed.  And of course, for situations like street shooting I can just use the OVF or when on a tripod, use the EVF/rear display. 

Again, this is just how I approach photography and a bit of why the M with its dual finders is my preferred tool for doing so.  It's certainly not for everyone. And in fact many on these pages have often expressed that they find this approach at best alien, at worst heretical.  Yet, I have come to believe that while neither the OVF nor EVF is ideal, together they are magic.  By combining the two, the M with Viso mitigates either methodologies weaknesses.  That in turn allows me the freedom to make the sort of images I wish to. Hence, if you're on the fence, are new to the M and can afford the difference in cost, I'd personally recommend going with the base 11/Viso (or a used 10-R/Viso) over the new EV.  In my view the EV-1 is specifically for those that are already familiar with the potential set of tradeoffs and are good with them.

YMMV, best of luck whichever way you decide to go.

 

 

 

Edited November 4 by Tailwagger

[lct]

Another so-called difficult lens on digital M cameras, the Super-Angulon 21/3.4. It is a lens from the 1960s designed by Schneider with 8 elements in 4 groups. On M8 and M9 cameras, it could be used without exposure metering IIRC. On the M240, it can can be used too but classic exposure metering does not work with it and the lens can produce nasty results in color. I have no experience with M10 cameras but the colors issue mentioned above  does not exist on M11 and MEV1 cameras. In both cases, the Leica instruction manual does not quote the lens as incompatible or limited compatibility. Beware that the lens protrudes deeply into the bodies though, so better mounting and unmounting it with care to prevent hitting the roller cam that sits close to the camera mount. Otherwise, the S-A 21/3.4 works perfectly on both M11 and MEV1.

Couple of snaps on MEV1 below. Handheld. See details in exif data.

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 November 4 by lct

[Derbyshire Man]

Lens looks ok but the apples are even better!

[lct]

The Macro-Elmar 90/4 is another interesting lens on the MEV1.
This collapsible lens is the more compact telephoto among 90mm Leica lenses AFAIK. In extended position, the lens is slighly shorter than both Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 and Elmar-C 90/4.
At the time of its release (2003), the lens was being sold along with an early Macro Adapter (# 14409) that was designed with goggles for use on rangefinders. The MEV1 works well with this early adapter but the goggles are useless on it since the MEV1 has no VF nor RF window. However, this early Macro Adapter is linked mechanically to the lens, which allows for autozoom from 0.5m to infinity, contrary to the current Macro Adapter (# 14652) that is lacking such a link and does not permit autozoom accordingly. As strange as it may seem, it is therefore advisable to use the early Macro Adapter, in spite of its goggles, if autozoom is needed on the MEV1.
Besides the hassle of bringing useless goggles, another drawback of using the early Macro Adapter, is that this accessory from 2003 is not 6-bit coded. I don't know if it can be coded by Leica or othewise but i found a DIY solution by replacing the uncoded flange of the early 14409 adapter with the coded flange of the current 14652 adapter. This way, the lens is detected automatically as Macro-Adapter-M 14652 and the focal length showing in exif data is 90mm.
Warning: My experience is limited to the first version of the Macro-Elmar 90/4 (# 11633) so i don't know if it is reproductible to the second version of the lens (# 11670).

Couple of snaps with MEV1, Macro-Elmar 90/4 # 11633, Macro Adapter # 14409. Handheld. Details in exif data.

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!

[jonoslack]

Great post - interesting observations (I've been having fun with some of these lenses too)

best

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/4/2025 at 3:27 PM, Tailwagger said:

...at waist level all while balancing on a pile of somewhat unstable logs...

Just realized, given the image was obviously made in portrait (not cropped out of landscape), the more astute among us might quite rightly read "at waist level" and call BS.  I should have related that given the unstable viewing platform, the shot was made prefocusing with OVF and standing perpendicular to the target utilizing [at] waist level.  One of the aspects that made the shot memorable.

Edited November 7 by Tailwagger

[lct]

About zoom lenses on MEV1.
Besides adapted R-mount lenses, there have been two zoom lenses in the M system. The WATE, acronym of Wide Angle Tri-Elmar 16-18-21/4 (# 11626), and the MATE, acronym of Medium Angle Tri-Elmar 28-35-50/4 (v1 # 11890 ; v2 # 11625). Both are now discontinued but all hope of new versions is not lost if EVFs are a success in the M system.
The WATE is a parfocal lens which remains in focus as the lens zooms, with a unique pair of 28/90 framelines in the M11's OVF, and no framelines in both M11's and MEV1's EVF, except for Leica perspective control (LPC) if this feature is enabled.
Autozoom is possible on both cameras, but only between infinity and 0.7m or a bit closer. Below this limit, despite its 0.5m MFD, the lens is not RF-coupled so that autozoom does not work anymore. Apart from the Summicron 50/2 DR and the Macro-Elmar 90/4 mentioned above, i'm not aware of M lenses RF-coupled below 0.6m but i may be missing something.
Couple of snaps with MEV1, WATE @ 16mm, LPC. Handheld. Details in exif data.

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!

[FrozenInTime]

@lct and the Konica 21-35mm, which seems like a great pairing.

[lct]

Thank you @FrozenInTime I have no experience with the Konica 21-35mm but assuming it is designed the same way as my Hexanon 50/2, it must be RF-coupled so that autozoom should be possible down to its MFD the same way as it is with the Hexanon 50/2. The Konica 21-35mm cannot be 6-bit coded though, i suppose, but again, i have no experience with this lens.

The MATE referred to above is the acronym for Medium Angle Tri-Elmar 28-35-50/4. It is a varifocal lens that cannot zoom all the way from 28 to 50mm but changes focal length when it is set to 28mm, 35mmm, and 50mm. This is not handy if one wants to zoom in-between two focal lengths, although there is a hidden close focus setting at around 40mm. In turn, compared to the WATE, the MATE has the advantage to trigger automatically three pairs of framelines when zooming to 28mm (28/90), 35mm (35/135) and 50mm (50/75) respectively. This is an advantage in RF mode, as these framelines appear in optical VFs. There are no such framelines in EVF mode, though, so the lens must be coded to provide the same information.

The MATE has been released in 1998 IIRC, at a time when 6-bit coding did not exist yet, but such coding can be made on demand by Leica AFAIK. I would recommend it since coding is the only way for the camera to know what focal length is in use during shootings. Provided the lens is 6-bit coded, the focal length in use is shown in the EVF of both M11 and MEV1 cameras, also in exif data. This way, the camera can take into account the active focal length of the lens, in order to set exposure in auto iso mode and/or to draw the digital framelines of Leica Perspective Control (LPC) if this function is enabled in the camera.

Couple of snaps with MEV1 + MATE, LPC, handheld. Details in exif data.

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 Sunday at 10:26 PM by lct

[jaapv]

The coding does not - cannot- transmit the actual focal length used on the MATE The focal length is transmitted mechanically by a shifting lug in the flange.  The coding only informs the camera which lens is mounted. Which can be set in the camera as well. 
Obliviously it is not needed for the camera to know the actual focal length when using an EVF. 

[lct]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

The coding does not - cannot- transmit the actual focal length used on the MATE The focal length is transmitted mechanically by a shifting lug in the flange.  The coding only informs the camera which lens is mounted. Which can be set in the camera as well. 
Obliviously it is not needed for the camera to know the actual focal length when using an EVF. 

Different experience here. 6-bit coding is necessary for such a transmission. Without 6-bit coding, the camera does not know which focal length is in use. Easy to check if you have an uncoded MATE on hand. You will see that the focal length does not show on LCD or EVF, nor does it in exif data. I don't remember how your M9 behaves but it should say "uncoded" normally. Also, modern M cameras need to know the actual focal length of lenses for at least two purposes: setting exposure in auto iso mode and drawing electronic framelines for LPC (Leica Perspective Control). Without such information, neither my M11 nor MEV1 could set shutter speeds to 1/(2f)s, for instance, because they would not know the f value.

[DadDadDaddyo]

26 minutes ago, lct said:

Without 6-bit coding, the camera does not know which focal length is in use.

That's only because the camera doesn't know which lens is in use. 

Once the camera learns from the 6bit coding that a MATE is present, the body can then determine the focal length mechanically, from the position of the internal frame selection.

If 6bit = MATE, then frame selection = focal length.

Edited Monday at 02:39 PM by DadDadDaddyo

[jaapv]

36 minutes ago, lct said:

Different experience here. 6-bit coding is necessary for such a transmission. Without 6-bit coding, the camera does not know which focal length is in use. Easy to check if you have an uncoded MATE on hand. You will see that the focal length does not show on LCD or EVF, nor does it in exif data. I don't remember how your M9 behaves but it should say "uncoded" normally. Also, modern M cameras need to know the actual focal length of lenses for at least two purposes: setting exposure in auto iso mode and drawing electronic framelines for LPC (Leica Perspective Control). Without such information, neither my M11 nor MEV1 could set shutter speeds to 1/(2f)s, for instance, because they would not know the f value.

That is because the lens must be known in the camera for the mechanical readout. Setting it in uncoded lenses should suffice

edit  I see I duplicate the post above

 

 

[lct]

36 minutes ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

That's only because the camera doesn't know which lens is in use.

Hence the code is necessary.

[jdlaing]

An uncoded MATE, if selected from the lens menu, will show the focal length in the exif. Once the frame lines are triggered by the lens mount the camera is informed of the focal length.

[jdlaing]

PS: That’s I’d you haven’t ham handed messed up the lens by fooling with it.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

An uncoded MATE, if selected from the lens menu, will show the focal length in the exif. Once the frame lines are triggered by the lens mount the camera is informed of the focal length.

Unsure what camera you're referring to but in manual detection mode, on M11 & MEV1, the MATE has three different lens profiles that you have to select manually (see below). In any case, the 6-bit code is necessary for the camera to detect the MATE automatically.
28-35-50 f/4.0 ASPH @28mm 11625
28-35-50 f/4.0 ASPH @35mm 11625
28-35-50 f/4.0 ASPH @50mm 11625

[lct]

On 11/7/2025 at 10:15 PM, lct said:

[...] The WATE, acronym of Wide Angle Tri-Elmar 16-18-21/4 (# 11626), and the MATE, acronym of Medium Angle Tri-Elmar 28-35-50/4 (v1 # 11890 ; v2 # 11625). Both are now discontinued [...]

According to the Leica site, the WATE is not discontinued sorry.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Carrot]

They still list lenses that are no longer being made, but the WATE no longer has the ‘shop now’ link. 

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!