Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Hi there
    there seem to be two variants of the tri-elmar 28,35,50:
    11890 AND 11625
    They both seem to be asph - the 11890 as distance markings on it and looks nicer.

    Does anyone have the absolute low down on differences between the two - optically and mechanically?

    thanks in advance

    Just this guy you know

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Jono,
    Optically there is no difference between the two versions. Physically, the second version is slimmer taking a 49mm filter vs a 55mm one. Furthermore, the second one has a focussing tab. The depth of field lines are present in the second, as you have noted.
    Functionally, the frame line shift when changing focal lengths is smoother in the second version. It was down right fiddly in the first. Also, I like having the focus tab. When I had the first version, everytime I tried to focus, I would change focal lengths. It drove me crazy. (I even contacted Leica USA when the second version was introduced to see if they could perform a version change operation---no reply.) I sold it.
    Furthermore, the hood for the second version is a bit more streamlined than the first.
    Henry

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by heninden View Post
    Jono,
    Optically there is no difference between the two versions. Physically, the second version is slimmer taking a 49mm filter vs a 55mm one. Furthermore, the second one has a focussing tab. The depth of field lines are present in the second, as you have noted.
    Functionally, the frame line shift when changing focal lengths is smoother in the second version. It was down right fiddly in the first. Also, I like having the focus tab. When I had the first version, everytime I tried to focus, I would change focal lengths. It drove me crazy. (I even contacted Leica USA when the second version was introduced to see if they could perform a version change operation---no reply.) I sold it.
    Furthermore, the hood for the second version is a bit more streamlined than the first.
    Henry
    Henry
    Thanks very much - I guess I'll hang on for a decently priced copy of the second version (could be a long wait!)
    If anyone's reading this and has one for sale . . . here I am!

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Maybe I am wrong but I believe Leica Beefs up the mechanics of the older version when they need work espicailly since the m8

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by dseelig View Post
    Maybe I am wrong but I believe Leica Beefs up the mechanics of the older version when they need work espicailly since the m8
    Thanks for that . . . . how can I find out if you're wrong!

    Just this guy you know

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Jono,
    I have the first version, and it was often fiddly in changing focal length (more or less stuck in the 28mm position which required pointing the lens down after which it went smoothly) I had purchased it new from a dealer who had it as old unsold stock and it was way out of warranty. I sent it to Leica and they readjusted it free of charge and it now functions perfectly.
    I originally bought the MATE when it first came out, traded it in for the newer 2nd version when that came out and found that consistently less sharp than my old one! So I sold it. After many years, when I went over to the M8 I found the one I now have (1st version) and a once readjusted am very happy with it. Focus is spot on on my M8 and the image quality is super. The only regret is that the first version has a wonderful sort of built-in hood whereby the lens is well retracted and as the focal length increase retracts further. Wonderful if you don't need a filter, but with a filter you lose this and have to attach a hood, which makes the MATE huge to my way of thinking. So I often use it without the UV/IR filter which isn't ideal and requires PP correction.
    Sorry for the length of this, but hope the info is helpful.
    regards
    Maurice

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    819
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    If there's a local dealer near you, it's worth your time to shoot 50 or so shots on your M8 at wide open apertures. F4 with the M8 results in auto-ISO bumping to 320 or 640 awfully quickly. For about the same money (if purchased used) I think the 28 Elmarit ASPH & 50 Lux ASPH would be more satisfying. Just my $.02

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by archiM44 View Post
    Jono,
    I have the first version, and it was often fiddly in changing focal length (more or less stuck in the 28mm position which required pointing the lens down after which it went smoothly) I had purchased it new from a dealer who had it as old unsold stock and it was way out of warranty. I sent it to Leica and they readjusted it free of charge and it now functions perfectly.
    I originally bought the MATE when it first came out, traded it in for the newer 2nd version when that came out and found that consistently less sharp than my old one! So I sold it. After many years, when I went over to the M8 I found the one I now have (1st version) and a once readjusted am very happy with it. Focus is spot on on my M8 and the image quality is super. The only regret is that the first version has a wonderful sort of built-in hood whereby the lens is well retracted and as the focal length increase retracts further. Wonderful if you don't need a filter, but with a filter you lose this and have to attach a hood, which makes the MATE huge to my way of thinking. So I often use it without the UV/IR filter which isn't ideal and requires PP correction.
    Sorry for the length of this, but hope the info is helpful.
    regards
    Maurice
    HI Maurice - thank you for that - it's more helpful than you could possibly imagine

    Just this guy you know

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Jono,
    you are very welcome.
    Just checking back, I realize I haven't used the lens this year, because of its size with the hood.
    I believe the slightly poorer results with the second version I had may have been due to a fault in that sample, (Maybe focus was slighty off). The optics of both versions are the same.
    All my MATE's were purchased mew and not used.
    I use mine wide open all the time (when I do) and its IQ is excellent. If you want, I can post some DNG files.

    regards
    Maurice

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by archiM44 View Post
    Jono,
    you are very welcome.
    Just checking back, I realize I haven't used the lens this year, because of its size with the hood.
    I believe the slightly poorer results with the second version I had may have been due to a fault in that sample, (Maybe focus was slighty off). The optics of both versions are the same.
    All my MATE's were purchased mew and not used.
    I use mine wide open all the time (when I do) and its IQ is excellent. If you want, I can post some DNG files.

    regards
    Maurice
    HI Maurice
    I don't need files, as I have plenty on the M8 - I bought one right at the start (new, off the shelf) and had it coded - foolishly I sold it .

    I'm just wondering whether to get another - it seems I can get a 'recent' first version for around 300 less than a second version (decisions decisions).

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    My V2 Mate had to go back to Solms for adjustment to work properly on the M8. Whereas it changed frames OK, it did not change the electronics of the M8 to 28mm, so that the EXIF read 50mm and any corrections were for 50mm not 28mm. It came back working but with a small mark on the very edge of the front element. It does not seem to affect images and the whole lens would have to be taken apart for it to be polished and recoated. At which point, no doubt it would come back with another fault, so I am leaving well alone.

    Another oddity is how it works with the SF58 flash. 50mm on lens - you get 50mm on the flash; 35mm on the lens you get 35mm on the flash but 28mm on the lens and you get 35mm on the flash. Leica's website explains why this is. The flash will always read out the nearest available wider setting of the lens focal length times the 1.3 crop factor.

    The Leica lens cap is horrible if you have the V2 ventilated hood. I cannot get my fingers in to hold it when releasing and trying to refit is close to impossible. Hoya make a 49mm cap with the release tabs near the centre of the cap.

    Apart from this, the MATE is the ultimate holiday lens for the M8. Nowadays on holiday, I just take the MATE, WATE and 35 Lux for the evenings and inside buildings. I might slip a 75 or 90 in my main luggage but I find it rarely gets used. The autoiso has made the MATE more user friendly.

    Wilson

  12. #12
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Correction to my post above - it is HAMA not Hoya who does the 49mm lens cap. It is currently available on Amazon UK for GBP2.99.

    Wilson

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member weinschela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York suburb
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    I second Wilson's comments. I have both MATE (v.2) and WATE. Excellent for travel. No scientific comparisons but IMHO not quite as good as a 35 or 50 Summicron or to my 25mm Zeiss. But quality is still excellent and convenience hard to beat. Also second the Hama cap when you're using the lens hood. Hoods can be tough to find. Got mine from KEH.

  14. #14
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    When I had a friend staying with me recently, who had a bagful of lenses, we got the focus charts out and did some semi-scientific comparisons, with the MATE in mind. We did all the lenses at f4. We looked at both sharpness and contrast. 28mm was by some margin the MATE's weakest length. It was much weaker than the Summicron and still behind an Ultron 1.9 in sharpness but better in contrast. At 35mm it was considerably weaker than my 35 ASPH Lux both in sharpness and contrast, equal in sharpness to my friend's 35 Nokton but better in contrast and much better than my 35 Color Skopar in every way. At 50 mm it was equal to my friend's 50 Summicron in contrast and only very little behind on sharpness (that was a surprise) and considerably better than his 50/1.5 Nokton, which was quite soft and low contrast. My friend's MATE was equal if not a fraction better than mine but that may have been because it had smoother, easier focusing. Mine has had two Solms rebuilds recently and is still quite stiff. It was a 30% off lens and the previous owner hardly ever used it as it had a frame shift problem, I guess from new. I was thinking of getting a Summicron ASPH 50, mainly for use on my M4 but seeing how good the MATE is at 50 I will just put up with f4 and use a faster film.

    Wilson

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    HI Wilson
    Nice to hear from you - I hope you're well.

    Weinschela
    WELCOME!!!

    Thanks for chipping in. My problem with the MATE is not whether I want one or not . . . but how much I want to pay for one

    I quite agree with you about the WATE/MATE/ (in my case 75 'cron) combination for travel - I used it for several trips abroad, and then, in a moment of madness I sold my MATE to Tim Ashley

    I had bought it new from Bart in Lewis for a sensible price, and it even brought up the right info and framelines.

    My only criticism was the close focusing (or lack of it).

    Now I want one back again, I can get a version one for around 1700, but the best I can find on a version 2 is 2250, and I can't afford it! Hence the question about the two types of lens.

    Just this guy you know

  16. #16
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Jono,

    Keep looking. I missed a V2 from Ffordes last year at 1699 because they would not give me a reasonable price for the little used 50 ASPH Lux I got from you. It was also not coded. In the end I did a better deal with Luigi Vaccaro, who has nice lenses at reasonable prices from time to time (can't recall for the moment his eBay name) and he gave me a fair price for the 50 Lux, which I had used as much as you had, so it was like new.

    Lovely weather down with me in France but we are wishing you would send us some of your rain. It has only rained on 3 days here since the end of April and my trees are dying for lack of water.

    Wilson

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonlaidlaw View Post
    Jono,

    Keep looking. I missed a V2 from Ffordes last year at 1699 because they would not give me a reasonable price for the little used 50 ASPH Lux I got from you. It was also not coded. In the end I did a better deal with Luigi Vaccaro, who has nice lenses at reasonable prices from time to time (can't recall for the moment his eBay name) and he gave me a fair price for the 50 Lux, which I had used as much as you had, so it was like new.

    Lovely weather down with me in France but we are wishing you would send us some of your rain. It has only rained on 3 days here since the end of April and my trees are dying for lack of water.

    Wilson
    Hi Wilson
    It's horrible here - 15 degrees and raining euch. You can have it . . added to which we have a plague of flies.

    I could get a v1 for 1699 with a bit of warranty, but the v2 seem to be either not available, or quite a bit more expensive. It's tempting.

    Just this guy you know

  18. #18
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: Tri-Elmar (MATE) - 2 versions - what's the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Wilson
    It's horrible here - 15 degrees and raining euch. You can have it . . added to which we have a plague of flies.

    I could get a v1 for 1699 with a bit of warranty, but the v2 seem to be either not available, or quite a bit more expensive. It's tempting.
    Jono,

    I would be wary of a v1. I notice how much less effort it takes to change focal length on my M4 than it does on the M8. If there is a weakness in the v1 frame change mechanism, which is what most say, it will be on the M8 that this would be at its most vulnerable. Also the filters at e55mm are more expensive than the e49mm of the v2 and the correct ventilated hood for v1, I am told, makes hens' teeth look common. I am now glad I hung on for the extra 2 months it took to find a coded v2, albeit it had to go straight back to Solms to get mended properly. Anyway it is too dark in Norfolk at moment to use a MATE. A Noctilux would be more useful.

    Wilson

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •