The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A few questions about the MATE

topoxforddoc

New member
I bought an E49 version 2 of this lens when it first came out. It had rave reviews from Mr Puts. It is a really fantastic lens and beautifully made. The 35 and 50 options were as good as the pre-asph 35 and 50 cron albeit two stops slower. There was a bit of barrel distortion at the 28 end, but nothing terrible. I sold mine just because I found myself using primes and wanted the speed. If you want a travel lens, then it's a top choice.
 

henningw

Member
I've had mine (1st vers) since about 2007 and despite having various other lenses in those focal lengths still use it a fair bit on M8, M9 and 240. It was probably slightly more useful to me on the M8 than later models, but still… For walking around, I sometimes take it and the 90 macro Elmar and am quite happy. I haven't really had any flare issues over and above those with the single focal length lenses, and while at 28mm it doesn't quite measure up to the 28/2 at f/4, at other apertures and focal lengths it matches current offerings quite well in practice. It's definitely as good or better than pre-asph 28's and 35's.

As the handling is a bit strange with the 3 rings I made a focussing tab with a plastic tie-wrap.

If you've seen pictures of the MATE cut in two you'll see how complex the mechanics are, and why Leica couldn't afford to continue with it. The focal length progression is due to the optical design; it's not a zoom and in between settings can't produce a useful image.

It usually comes with me on trips.

Henning
 

weinschela

Subscriber Member
I had one years ago when I was still in film with M7. I sold it to fund my M8 and quickly regretted the sale. I bought another E49 last year and it is a great travel lens as long as you are mostly outdoors. The E49 is supposedly more reliable than the E55 and commands a higher price. I do not think it can match any of the primes on acuity but it is still a first class lens. Reading Erwin Puts on this lens is really worth it. Everything is a compromise and in this case, for saving some weight - or even the expense of three lenses vs one, it does what it is supposed to do.

As an outdoor oriented travel kit, a WATE a MATE and the Macro Elmar are a very good combination. Three lenses. Seven focal lengths. Not much weight. if If you can deal with f4 .....
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
...As an outdoor oriented travel kit, a WATE a MATE and the Macro Elmar are a very good combination. Three lenses. Seven focal lengths. Not much weight. if If you can deal with f4 .....
That was the origin of my thinking: I already have two out of three, so the MATE seemed like a complement.

I see that the E49 version seems to be generally thought of as having superior mechanicals.
 

johneaton

Member
Reading through other's comments and thinking bit more carefully about my own use, I would emphasize: (1) that I think the MATE is a unique travel lens, I do get shots that I wouldn't have got otherwise (I wouldn't be carrying three primes!); (2) my personal view is that on prints up to 16x20 I can't see the difference from the primes (external landscapes, architecture, cities, etc): (3) I wouldn't be too concerned about the 'flare' issue, it's very infrequent and I'm not sure that any other lens wouldn't have exhibited similar results in identical circumstances. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives :)
 

j. white

New member
My understanding is that, yes, Hoya did make the front element. The discontinuation of the lens had to do with the supply of those front elements coming to a close as much as the financial considerations already mentioned.

I owned the e55 version of the lens. Bought it along with my first Leica: an M6 TTL. At the time I naively thought it would be "the one Leica lens I'd ever be able to own." What a slippery slope that turned out to be!

The e49 version has a few mechanical advantages:

1) The click stops for each focal length are tighter and thus more secure than with the original e55 version. I've never handled an e49, but do think this would be an improvement.
2) The e49 version features Depth of Field indicators for each focal length, whereas the e55 has none.
3) The e49 version has a focus tab. The e55 version does not.
4) Perhaps an advantage: the two have different hood options which may or may not affect flare performance. I didn't own one and thus will refrain from editorial comment!

I sold mine in part to fund my M8. In accord with the myth of selling *any* Leica lens, I must admit that do miss it.


-J.
 

250swb

Member
Bugatti loses money on every Veyron sold despite the car selling for $1M a copy.
But Volkswagen gains far more than they loose in having a platform for design innovation and technology, not to mention the advertising and promotional benefits of making Bugatti's that rub off on the VW group overall. And I think the 'losing money' quote was a relative term anyway, perhaps in the beginning they did, but I think it was something put about to calm the surprise and anguish caused by the initial price tag. They are now more like 1.6 million Pounds, not dollars, and sell like hot cakes.

Anyway, the MATE. I had the 49mm version and while it was a nice lens and did everything very well I felt it had no 'spark', that ingredient that makes you want a Leica lens over any other. Sometimes it was the slow speed that made things feel flat, but in actual terms I never liked the colour's it produced which I thought dull compared with similar focal length lenses. And then there was the flare, and the random flare Jono mentioned was real and would have me scratching my head because sometimes the sun wasn't even out. That was a about ten years ago, I sold it within six months.

Nowadays if weight was a definite overriding issue and I wanted those same focal lengths for travel I would get the three CV Skopar's, the 28, 35, and 50. Maybe even add the 21mm in as well albeit it can produce the 'red edge' problem, but of course not a problem mounted on the MM.

Steve
 
Top