MATE E55 vs E49 difference?

[francishmt]

Can someone please, let me know the difference between the E55 and E49 version of the MATE especially from a IQ and usage perspective on M9? I have an opportunity to buy a E55 version locally, but wanted to know more before commuting. Good sharpness and non-excessive distortion is important. Effective resistant to flare is good too.

 

[francishmt]

No one has experience or opinions about the 2 versions?

 

[Hacker]

They are optically the same.

 

[jaapv]

The frameline switch on version one is a bit more problematic, but if it is properly set up, there is no difference in use or optics of either lens. Especially the 28 mm is not very flare-resistant (35 and 50 are much better), but optically it is as good as the pre-asph equivalent focal lengths of the period. Distortion is reasonably well controlled, but quite visible at 28 mm. The best focal length is 35, followed by 50 and 28 as last. A good day-time travel lens.

 

[d_brown]

I have the later E49 version of the MATE. The later version is supposed to have a better focusing mechanism than the older one. It is quite sharp, and renders nicely without excessive bite. There is some barrel distortion at 28mm, but is easily fixed in LR or PS when objectionable. Strong backlight will produce some flare. I like this lens and use it for a daytime walk about. A search will produce many threads on this lens.

Dale

 

[archiM44]

I have had both.
First an E55 which was very good.
I then was persuaded by my then dealer to trade it in for the E49.
Mechanically it was indeed better (somewhat) but optically this one was not as good.
(both were purchased new)
It was not really bad optically, just in comparison with my first one.
I sold it and about two or three years ago one of the Leica dealers here (who was stopping with Leica because they now have to stock too many M items to keep their dealership) was getting rid of his stock and still had a brand new type E55 for a very attractive price.
It is every bit as good as my first one and optically amazing. Mechanically it is sometimes quirky and sticks when trying to move out of the 28mm position. Point it down, and it moves very smoothly.
I sent it to Solms and they adjusted it for free although theoretically it was out of warranty, but it still sometimes sticks in the 28mm position so I have to point it down and then it works smoothly for weeks.
Focus is spot on on my M9 and the images are beautiful wide open.
Every once in a while I think of selling it and getting the new Lux 35mm but then I remember how practical it is as a daytime walk around.
sorry for the long post, maurice

 

[jonoslack]

The frameline switch on version one is a bit more problematic, but if it is properly set up, there is no difference in use or optics of either lens. Especially the 28 mm is not very flare-resistant (35 and 50 are much better), but optically it is as good as the pre-asph equivalent focal lengths of the period. Distortion is reasonably well controlled, but quite visible at 28 mm. The best focal length is 35, followed by 50 and 28 as last. A good day-time travel lens.

HI Jaap
Actually as far as I'm aware from reports, and certainly with respect to my own experience - it's 50mm which is prone to flare - 35 and 28 are okay. I don't know about the mechanics, although I understood that the second version (49) had better paint on the inside to help with the flare at 50 - it does seem to be better, but it's not perfect . . .

I've had four - two second versions (both of which I've kept for longer), and two first versions (which I sent back because of the flare at 50). All four of the ones I've used had framelines which worked properly, but they seem more reliable on the 2nd version.

Still, even four is hardly a statistical sample :lecture:. . . . . . . although I think it probably indicates a horrifying degree of vacillation!:ROTFL:

 

[franziska]

Both versions are optically identical but the second version is better from mechanical point of view.
The E55 chrome version which is very rare has the mechanical improvements of the second version.

 

[ashwinrao1]

Here's a review of the lens, that I just wrote for Steve Huff's site:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/...-review-medium-angle-tri-elmar-by-ashwin-rao/

I agree with Jono, in that my issues with flare were only noted at 50 mm. I did feel that the lens performs best at 35 mm, followed by 28 and then 50 mm (the last due to flare). It's a lovely lens and a great daytime shooter. You can slap on a 24 elmarit hood onto the E55 version to help with flare, but it makes the lens seem HUGE....

 

[francishmt]

Ashwin, if I put on a 24 elmarit hood, does it cause any problem at the 28 or 35 range? Do you also have the hood's product #?

 

[Hacker]

Ashwin, if I put on a 24 elmarit hood, does it cause any problem at the 28 or 35 range? Do you also have the hood's product #?

The correct hood for the Tri Elmar is here: http://www.adorama.com/LCLH283550M.html

If you are referring to the 24mm Elmarit hood, it is here:
http://www.adorama.com/LCLH2428M.html

 

[tdtaylor]

I have found the second version to be the perfect travel lens. In good light, it gives the primes a good run for their money. Sharp, medium ti strong contrast. I have found the mechanics excellent, and flare has not presented a problem at 50mm.