A few questions about the MATE

[Robert Campbell]

Hi there,

I've a few questions about the MATE, and hoping some of you can help. It would be for use on the M240 and MM.

It seems like a good 'travel' lens; it would be about 300g lighter than my combination of 28/35/50 lenses together. Weight is a significant issue for me, as I have neck problems. But is it a 'jack of all trades and master of none'?

I'm not concerned about the maximum aperture, more about performance and reliability. I've read that the mechanics can be a bit weak; is this correct?

Is there a difference between the E55 and E49 versions? I gather the optics are the same, what about the mechanicals?

And, is the convenience worth it over three (modest) primes?

TIA

 

[bradhusick]

In my experience if you can cope with having an f/4 minimum aperture the MATE is an excellent lens for travel. I had the most recent version and the mechanics were rock solid. When using an M8 or M9 I was limited to a max usable ISO of 800 so the f/4 limitation made me use other lenses. But on an M240 you're gaining a few stops of usable ISO so it's as if the lens went from being an f/4 to an effective f/2. Now we're talkin'.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks for that!

Any other views?

 

[vickko]

I had one, great travel lens, very good imaging, but, f4 speed was a concern. Not an issue for outside shots, but limiting for inside. Mostly compensated for with an M8/M9 because you could just dial up a faster ISO. The f4 was still a concern if you wanted narrow DOF for subject isolation.

I had the E49 version, and I　understand that the mechanicals were superior on it, especially in regard to moving the indicator for the framelines.

And it is a largish lens, but not ungainly so.

In the end, I did sell it, as it was a fairly valuable lens and I felt that having discreet lenses was okay for my shooting style.

 

[Paratom]

Hi there,

I've a few questions about the MATE, and hoping some of you can help. It would be for use on the M240 and MM.

It seems like a good 'travel' lens; it would be about 300g lighter than my combination of 28/35/50 lenses together. Weight is a significant issue for me, as I have neck problems. But is it a 'jack of all trades and master of none'?

I'm not concerned about the maximum aperture, more about performance and reliability. I've read that the mechanics can be a bit weak; is this correct?

Is there a difference between the E55 and E49 versions? I gather the optics are the same, what about the mechanicals?

And, is the convenience worth it over three (modest) primes?

TIA

I have one but don't use it that much. Optics are fine, even at f4.0.
However I use the M often at wider f-stops, that's why I don't use the MATE much. People say the later version is mechanically better/more reliable.
One comment about the focal length: The 50mm setting of the MATE seems somewhat wider than the 50mm primes I own.
Now that you mention the lens I should use it more often again. However I se 35mm now for 80% of my shots, so I really don't need the 28 and 50mm setting often, and that's why I bring the 35mm Summicron most of times.

 

[jonoslack]

I've had three, 2 E49s 1 E55.
I didn't love any of them, and won't get another!
The last one had occasional flare at 50mm, enough to completely spoil the image, but very random and unpredictable. I learned later that this could be fixed with a trip to Solms, but I suppose that might not be cheap.
All the best

 

[johneaton]

Hello Robert,

I've used an E49 version on an MM for a couple of years now -- I got it for the same reason that you're talking about, my poor shoulders just can't carry a heavy bag any more . As a travel lens I think it's superb, though I'm primarily a landscape and architecture photographer, so I'm not using it (much) for portraits or street work -- though when I have done some street work, leaving it at 35mm and f8 works really well for me! Apart from not having to carry those three primes it also obviates issues with having to change lenses at inopportune moments -- for me it nearly always seems to be an in-opportune moment . Looking at my images, I find that it compares very well with what I get using primes (28/2.8, 35/2, and 50/2) -- I have encountered very occasional flare problems at 50mm also, but not enough to be a real concern (and sometimes it can work well) -- f5.6 or f8 it gives me great results and the mechanics have been trouble free. For my own personal work around architecture and buildings using the MATE as the 'normal' lens means that I can carry around the 21 Super Elmar as well, which is an added bonus

Good luck!
John.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks all for your thoughts!

I'm pondering...

 

[ashwinrao1]

I wrote an article about the MATE 4 years ago in the M9 days (well, I still have the M9)...anyways, the MATE is a lovely performer, moreso at 35 and 50, albeit a bit slow. At 28, it's fine, but occasionally loses contrast and can flare.... I think it's rendering is great, and I only sold it because I use primes more and value speed:

The Leica MATE Lens Review (Medium Angle Tri-Elmar) by Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

[erudolph]

I don't know this lens at all, but notice in the responses above that Jono and JohnEaton say it's subject to flare at 50mm and Ashwin says it tends to flare at 28mm. FWIW.

 

[jonoslack]

I don't know this lens at all, but notice in the responses above that Jono and JohnEaton say it's subject to flare at 50mm and Ashwin says it tends to flare at 28mm. FWIW.

Hi Ed
2 to 1 . . . but Ashwin is bigger than me so I won't argue

The flare at 50mm is insidious and apparently random (but can be fixed by a trip to Solms).

I think the flare at 28mm is standard "the sun is just outside the picture" flare

 

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks again for your thoughts and the link.

It might be a bit harsh, but I'm getting the feeling that the MATE is being "damned by faint praise". It's a clever concept, but just a bit flawed. Some mechanical problems, perhaps solved in the third iteration; I would be unhappy with the flare. Somehow, many of my pix are contre jour—is there any other way—and I think I'd be displeased with the results. And as sunshine is a rare commodity in Ireland these days, I don't want to return from a trip abroad (Dracula land in May is on the cards) only to find that many pix are unusable.

I think I'll stick with what I've got for the present.

 

[jonoslack]

Sensible man

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

A few more clues. Leica has withdrawn the MATE, even though it integrates its function nicely with the rangefinder system. The WATE (16-18-21) is still available. Since its range is actually pretty small, it is a true zoom, and with prime-like performance at least at the 16 and 21 mm ends of the range. I interpret this as saying that Leica doesn't feel the MATE keeps up with their current offerings.

scott

 

[jonoslack]

A few more clues. Leica has withdrawn the MATE, even though it integrates its function nicely with the rangefinder system. The WATE (16-18-21) is still available. Since its range is actually pretty small, it is a true zoom, and with prime-like performance at least at the 16 and 21 mm ends of the range. I interpret this as saying that Leica doesn't feel the MATE keeps up with their current offerings.

scott

HI Scott
I think the MATE was already discontinued when the WATE was introduced (around the time of the M8 incidentally).
Of course I don't know, but I understood they stopped making the MATE because it was too expensive (all the mechanics to change the frame lines). The WATE doesn't have this.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

HI Scott
I think the MATE was already discontinued when the WATE was introduced (around the time of the M8 incidentally).
Of course I don't know, but I understood they stopped making the MATE because it was too expensive (all the mechanics to change the frame lines). The WATE doesn't have this.

Puts has the MATE manufacture ending in 2006, although I think you could still find them when the M8 came out. The fact that the frame sequence in the M3,2,4,5,6,7 cameras was 35, then 50, then 28 mm must have required a really Rube Goldberg (sorry, Heath Robinson) mechanism.

scott

 

[jonoslack]

Puts has the MATE manufacture ending in 2006, although I think you could still find them when the M8 came out. The fact that the frame sequence in the M3,2,4,5,6,7 cameras was 35, then 50, then 28 mm must have required a really Rube Goldberg (sorry, Heath Robinson) mechanism.

scott

Exactly, difficult and expensive . Sadly I think my first one was probably state of the art, but the next two weren't.

 

[Robert Campbell]

A few more clues. Leica has withdrawn the MATE, even though it integrates its function nicely with the rangefinder system. The WATE (16-18-21) is still available. Since its range is actually pretty small, it is a true zoom, and with prime-like performance at least at the 16 and 21 mm ends of the range. I interpret this as saying that Leica doesn't feel the MATE keeps up with their current offerings.

scott

Sometimes, what isn't said is more significant than what is said.

I'm still a bit curious; the front element of the MATE was made by Hoya; is this common for Leitz? And, the sequence of the focal lengths, 28-50-35 is strange; somehow not 'natural'. Was this sequence determined by the optics, or the gyrations needed for the frame line selector?

 

[Paratom]

A few more clues. Leica has withdrawn the MATE, even though it integrates its function nicely with the rangefinder system. The WATE (16-18-21) is still available. Since its range is actually pretty small, it is a true zoom, and with prime-like performance at least at the 16 and 21 mm ends of the range. I interpret this as saying that Leica doesn't feel the MATE keeps up with their current offerings.

scott

Hi Scott,
I rather believe that Leica didn't sell enough MATE or didn't see enough demand for such a lens.
As I wrote before I do believe the MATE keeps up pretty well with the primes. I once compared my MATE to 28/35/50 Summicrons (on the M8) - at f4.0 there was a slight difference and at f5.6 I couldn't tell much. It is not a supercontrasty lens but this is not a disadvantage in digital photography.
I haven't tested it on the M9/MM/M 240 though.

I also believe that the fact its not a real zoom has the advantage that the selection of focal length is more active from the photographer, while a zoom sometimes is just used instead of getting closer or more far away to the subject.
With the TRi-Elmar one really thinks if 28,35 or 50 is most adequate focal length for a certain subject.

If I was not liking 35mm so much, I would certainly use the Tri-Elmar more often. From an IQ-standpoint I would have no reservations.

 

[bradhusick]

I think this lens was so complex that Leica lost money on every one they sold - kind of like supercars. Bugatti loses money on every Veyron sold despite the car selling for $1M a copy.