jonoslack
Active member
Hi There
Phew - finally I got one!
For the uninitiated, the MATE is the MidAngleTriElmar (28 / 35 / 50)
I've been looking for one ever since June when I got the test M9. I bought one when I got the M8, but the combination of the blah focal lengths (37 / 48 / 66 equivalent) and the fact that it doesn't focus closer than a meter . . . persuaded me to get rid of it.
I felt that it would be a whole different thing on an M9 . . . I managed to find 2 version 1 lenses, but both of them suffered from a serious lack of contrast at 50mm (they were fine at 28 and 35). It turns out that leica do know about this and can fix it, but they went back.
Finally I managed to get a version 2 lens on ebay this week (expensive, but not as expensive as some I've seen), it was described as 'very good condition', but to me it looks like it's never been used! At any rate, I took 15 minutes off today to put it through it's paces.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that they're fine at 35 and 50, but not so good at 28. This test was a simple, hand held unscientific effort, but I thought it would give at least a feel for how the lens mike work on the M9.
All shots were at f5.6 (I actually took some at f4 as well, and they don't really look different). 100% crops are from the top right in each case.
no processing at all (i.e. straight into Aperture, and straight out again as jpg)
The corner fall off is pretty small at 28 and 50, and almost non existent at 35mm, and it isn't going to be noticeable, even in quite large prints.
Edge sharpness and centre sharpness don't seem to represent any compromise at all.
All the best
Phew - finally I got one!
For the uninitiated, the MATE is the MidAngleTriElmar (28 / 35 / 50)
I've been looking for one ever since June when I got the test M9. I bought one when I got the M8, but the combination of the blah focal lengths (37 / 48 / 66 equivalent) and the fact that it doesn't focus closer than a meter . . . persuaded me to get rid of it.
I felt that it would be a whole different thing on an M9 . . . I managed to find 2 version 1 lenses, but both of them suffered from a serious lack of contrast at 50mm (they were fine at 28 and 35). It turns out that leica do know about this and can fix it, but they went back.
Finally I managed to get a version 2 lens on ebay this week (expensive, but not as expensive as some I've seen), it was described as 'very good condition', but to me it looks like it's never been used! At any rate, I took 15 minutes off today to put it through it's paces.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that they're fine at 35 and 50, but not so good at 28. This test was a simple, hand held unscientific effort, but I thought it would give at least a feel for how the lens mike work on the M9.
All shots were at f5.6 (I actually took some at f4 as well, and they don't really look different). 100% crops are from the top right in each case.
no processing at all (i.e. straight into Aperture, and straight out again as jpg)
The corner fall off is pretty small at 28 and 50, and almost non existent at 35mm, and it isn't going to be noticeable, even in quite large prints.
Edge sharpness and centre sharpness don't seem to represent any compromise at all.
All the best
