This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
p.1 #1The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
I hesitate to post this because I'm not in any way a lens tester. I couldn't find very much (any?!) information on the web concerning this combination when I needed it, so I will share my impressions with this group in case anyone else is wondering.
I was house bound this weekend and ran some basic tests. I was mainly concerned with corner sharpness / smearing at 28mm, color shifts and vignetting. I also tested the lens at 35 and 50mm and there were no surprises there. The lens is sharp with almost no vignetting at 35mm f/4 and none for the 50mm. Sharp across the frame for both 35 and 50mm at every aperture.
I'll save you the suspense - on the A7S this lens definitely performs at or above the levels of any other lens I've used at 28mm. I've used the following besides the MATE, ordered in order of performance.
Here's a couple of shots of the lens on the A7S to show size and balance (it's perfectly balanced);
http://verndewit.com/img/s10/v101/p726941385.jpg
http://verndewit.com/img/s3/v23/p1042412079.jpg
I really didn't want to post samples because I know there's an infinite number of tests that can be run and I find them boring! I'll post some anyway to demonstrate some of the vignetting etc but don't jump all over me that I'm not doing things 'correctly' OK?!
I ran these tests for myself, to figure out the best hyperfocal settings and to set up the Sony PlayMemories Lens Correction app. I was also curious what my $$$ got me. I can't wait to use this lens on a Leica M some day too, but for now it'll be my "go to" walk around for the A7S when I don't want the bulk of the 24-70 (they weigh about the same). The 24-70 works extremely well on the A7S, but the MATE does beat it at equivalent focal lengths. (At f/11 my OM 24mm f/2.8 also beats the 24-70 but that shouldn't surprise anyone either...)
Here's a sequence of shots from f/4 to f/11, to show color smearing and vignetting at 28mm. As you can see, what is there is quite easily fixed either in PP or in the Sony PlayMemories app.
This first shot is at f/4 with the PlayMemories Lens Compensation app corrections:
http://verndewit.com/img/s7/v154/p1004425709.jpg
f/4 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s7/v154/p828072462.jpg
f/5.6 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s2/v51/p719999899.jpg
f/8 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s12/v182/p1067421948.jpg
f/11 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s8/v76/p619163096.jpg
When I compared the MATE to the Sony FE24-70mm at 28mm and f/11 the two lenses are surprisingly close with a slight edge going to the MATE. (My focus settings for the MATE were at 1.5m, so I think I could have made it better by focussing on the fence but it still performed pretty darn good IMHO.) The following are some comparisons but are screen grabs from LR to excuse the IQ please. The FE is on the left, MATE on the right.
Lower Right:
http://verndewit.com/img/s2/v52/p894006336.jpg
Lower Left:
http://verndewit.com/img/s10/v106/p1032150706.jpg
Center:
http://verndewit.com/img/s5/v130/p552470329.jpg
Center Left:
http://verndewit.com/img/s3/v42/p873229605.jpg
Center Right:
http://verndewit.com/img/s5/v120/p547109687.jpg
I was house bound this weekend and ran some basic tests. I was mainly concerned with corner sharpness / smearing at 28mm, color shifts and vignetting. I also tested the lens at 35 and 50mm and there were no surprises there. The lens is sharp with almost no vignetting at 35mm f/4 and none for the 50mm. Sharp across the frame for both 35 and 50mm at every aperture.
I'll save you the suspense - on the A7S this lens definitely performs at or above the levels of any other lens I've used at 28mm. I've used the following besides the MATE, ordered in order of performance.
- FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS @ 28mm
- OM 28mm f/2
- CG28mm f/2.8
Here's a couple of shots of the lens on the A7S to show size and balance (it's perfectly balanced);
http://verndewit.com/img/s10/v101/p726941385.jpg
http://verndewit.com/img/s3/v23/p1042412079.jpg
I really didn't want to post samples because I know there's an infinite number of tests that can be run and I find them boring! I'll post some anyway to demonstrate some of the vignetting etc but don't jump all over me that I'm not doing things 'correctly' OK?!
I ran these tests for myself, to figure out the best hyperfocal settings and to set up the Sony PlayMemories Lens Correction app. I was also curious what my $$$ got me. I can't wait to use this lens on a Leica M some day too, but for now it'll be my "go to" walk around for the A7S when I don't want the bulk of the 24-70 (they weigh about the same). The 24-70 works extremely well on the A7S, but the MATE does beat it at equivalent focal lengths. (At f/11 my OM 24mm f/2.8 also beats the 24-70 but that shouldn't surprise anyone either...)
Here's a sequence of shots from f/4 to f/11, to show color smearing and vignetting at 28mm. As you can see, what is there is quite easily fixed either in PP or in the Sony PlayMemories app.
This first shot is at f/4 with the PlayMemories Lens Compensation app corrections:
http://verndewit.com/img/s7/v154/p1004425709.jpg
f/4 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s7/v154/p828072462.jpg
f/5.6 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s2/v51/p719999899.jpg
f/8 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s12/v182/p1067421948.jpg
f/11 uncorrected:
http://verndewit.com/img/s8/v76/p619163096.jpg
When I compared the MATE to the Sony FE24-70mm at 28mm and f/11 the two lenses are surprisingly close with a slight edge going to the MATE. (My focus settings for the MATE were at 1.5m, so I think I could have made it better by focussing on the fence but it still performed pretty darn good IMHO.) The following are some comparisons but are screen grabs from LR to excuse the IQ please. The FE is on the left, MATE on the right.
Lower Right:
http://verndewit.com/img/s2/v52/p894006336.jpg
Lower Left:
http://verndewit.com/img/s10/v106/p1032150706.jpg
Center:
http://verndewit.com/img/s5/v130/p552470329.jpg
Center Left:
http://verndewit.com/img/s3/v42/p873229605.jpg
Center Right:
http://verndewit.com/img/s5/v120/p547109687.jpg
Nov 30, 2014 at 02:42 PM
p.1 #2The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.
Nov 30, 2014 at 07:19 PM
p.1 #3The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Nov 30, 2014 at 09:10 PM
p.1 #4The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Yeah, I didn't want to bring up the price/value proposition, but the issue is there. You could get a Leica R 28 f/2.8 vII, a Leica M 40 f/2, an a Leica M 50 f/2 vIV, for substantially less and they all work well with the Sony A7 series cameras (I know you have gone this way Rich). Still those three lenses would be a lot of money too and there are few options at 28mm that look really good. The MATE seems to be one of them, but a more interesting comparison might be something like the fairly inexpensive Zeiss Contax/Yashica mount 28 f/2.8. That lens like the MATE is quite sharp, but has a fair bit of CA. I think the MATE may do better in the corners, but I'm not sure and it would be interesting to see just how much if any it does better.
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Yeah, I didn't want to bring up the price/value proposition, but the issue is there. You could get a Leica R 28 f/2.8 vII, a Leica M 40 f/2, an a Leica M 50 f/2 vIV, for substantially less and they all work well with the Sony A7 series cameras (I know you have gone this way Rich). Still those three lenses would be a lot of money too and there are few options at 28mm that look really good. The MATE seems to be one of them, but a more interesting comparison might be something like the fairly inexpensive Zeiss Contax/Yashica mount 28 f/2.8. That lens like the MATE is quite sharp, but has a fair bit of CA. I think the MATE may do better in the corners, but I'm not sure and it would be interesting to see just how much if any it does better.
Nov 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM
p.1 #5The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Thanks. This is exactly what I am looking for. It seems all tri-elmars are getting well with SONY...
Nov 30, 2014 at 11:08 PM
p.1 #6The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Yep. I got the MATE and WATE recently for substantially less than those prices, but still a ton of money. BUT. Wildlife guys spend 8-10K on one tele lens too, so the whole thing is kind of relative. For me, I'm planning to get a Leica FF soon, so if I can find lenses that perform well on both the Sony and the Leica, I'm killing two birds with one stone...
Other than the lenses being slow at f/4, when you look at Leica options for all 6 focal lengths you quickly get a lot higher than 10k! But 'value' is in the eye of the spender, so I totally understand that for most people Leica prices are way outta reach. The jury's still out for me, but based on what I've seen from both the MATE and the WATE, it's gonna be almost impossible to match the combination of small size and weight with the IQ of these lenses...
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Yep. I got the MATE and WATE recently for substantially less than those prices, but still a ton of money. BUT. Wildlife guys spend 8-10K on one tele lens too, so the whole thing is kind of relative. For me, I'm planning to get a Leica FF soon, so if I can find lenses that perform well on both the Sony and the Leica, I'm killing two birds with one stone...
Other than the lenses being slow at f/4, when you look at Leica options for all 6 focal lengths you quickly get a lot higher than 10k! But 'value' is in the eye of the spender, so I totally understand that for most people Leica prices are way outta reach. The jury's still out for me, but based on what I've seen from both the MATE and the WATE, it's gonna be almost impossible to match the combination of small size and weight with the IQ of these lenses...
Nov 30, 2014 at 11:30 PM
p.1 #7The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
RichYeah, I didn't want to bring up the price/value proposition, but the issue is there. You could get a Leica R 28 f/2.8 vII, a Leica M 40 f/2, an a Leica M 50 f/2 vIV, for substantially less and they all work well with the Sony A7 series cameras (I know you have gone this way Rich). Still those three lenses would be a lot of money too and there are few options at 28mm that look really good. The MATE seems to be one of them, but a more interesting comparison might be something like the fairly...Show more →
I didn't notice THAT much CA on the MATE, but I was comparing it to other lenses that had a lot more...
I was more concerned with smearing and color casts and sharpness I guess. The 'problem' is that as good as all those other lenses that you mention are, they require carrying more lenses, add up to more total weight and aren't convenient for me to carry while hiking / climbing / skiing. More than three lenses is almost unmanageable for me in the field, but I realize for many people this isn't the case.
naturephoto1 wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
I didn't notice THAT much CA on the MATE, but I was comparing it to other lenses that had a lot more...
I was more concerned with smearing and color casts and sharpness I guess. The 'problem' is that as good as all those other lenses that you mention are, they require carrying more lenses, add up to more total weight and aren't convenient for me to carry while hiking / climbing / skiing. More than three lenses is almost unmanageable for me in the field, but I realize for many people this isn't the case. Nov 30, 2014 at 11:34 PM
p.1 #8The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern Dewit wrote:
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
RichYeah, I didn't want to bring up the price/value proposition, but the issue is there. You could get a Leica R 28 f/2.8 vII, a Leica M 40 f/2, an a Leica M 50 f/2 vIV, for substantially less and they all work well with the Sony A7 series cameras (I know you have gone this way Rich). Still those three lenses would be a lot of money too and there are few options at 28mm that look really good. The MATE seems to be one of them, but a more interesting comparison might be something like the fairly inexpensive Zeiss Contax/Yashica mount 28 f/2.8. That lens like the MATE is quite sharp, but has a fair bit of CA. I think the MATE may do better in the corners, but I'm not sure and it would be interesting to see just how much if any it does better.I didn't notice THAT much CA on the MATE, but I was comparing it to other lenses that had a lot more... I was more concerned with smearing and color casts and sharpness I guess. The 'problem' is that as good as all those other lenses that you mention are, they require carrying more lenses, add up to more total weight and aren't convenient for me to carry while hiking / climbing / skiing. More than three lenses is almost unmanageable for me in the field, but I realize for many people this isn't the case.
That makes total sense. I can certainly see the appeal of the MATE for your situation, especially with the WATE. Just add a good 90 (like the summarit) and you are all set with three quite small lenses. In addition, the MATE is the only Leica M lens that I have seen that seems to have good performance at 28mm. So given that you want to have lenses that work with a FF digital Leica, your choices seem great. I think the CA is noticeable, but like all things that bothers some people more than others, and I suspect that a custom lens profile would clean most of it up pretty nicely. Again, I can totally see why this wouldn't be a major concern. Good luck with a very nice set of lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
I was more concerned with smearing and color casts and sharpness I guess. The 'problem' is that as good as all those other lenses that you mention are, they require carrying more lenses, add up to more total weight and aren't convenient for me to carry while hiking / climbing / skiing. More than three lenses is almost unmanageable for me in the field, but I realize for many people this isn't the case. That makes total sense. I can certainly see the appeal of the MATE for your situation, especially with the WATE. Just add a good 90 (like the summarit) and you are all set with three quite small lenses. In addition, the MATE is the only Leica M lens that I have seen that seems to have good performance at 28mm. So given that you want to have lenses that work with a FF digital Leica, your choices seem great. I think the CA is noticeable, but like all things that bothers some people more than others, and I suspect that a custom lens profile would clean most of it up pretty nicely. Again, I can totally see why this wouldn't be a major concern. Good luck with a very nice set of lenses.
Dec 01, 2014 at 12:02 AM
p.1 #9The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
I was surprised to see so much CA on the MATE- so I guess it bothers me .
But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
.But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
Dec 01, 2014 at 12:15 AM
p.1 #10The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
johnctharp wrote:
I was surprised to see so much CA on the MATE- so I guess it bothers me.
But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
I think you are right that the Sony does have automatic correction for CA and that is not doubt part of why it looks better with regard to CA. You could do much the same with the MATE and a custom profile, I believe.
I was surprised to see so much CA on the MATE- so I guess it bothers me
.But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
I think you are right that the Sony does have automatic correction for CA and that is not doubt part of why it looks better with regard to CA. You could do much the same with the MATE and a custom profile, I believe.
Dec 01, 2014 at 12:19 AM
p.1 #11The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern, thank you for sharing! Very interesting comparisons, as I had thought the MATE would not perform as well.
Dec 01, 2014 at 01:45 AM
p.1 #12The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern Dewit wrote:
Steve,
Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
RichYep. I got the MATE and WATE recently for substantially less than those prices, but still a ton of money. BUT. Wildlife guys spend 8-10K on one tele lens too, so the whole thing is kind of relative. For me, I'm planning to get a Leica FF soon, so if I can find lenses that perform well on both the Sony and the Leica, I'm killing two birds with one stone...
Other than the lenses being slow at f/4, when you look at Leica options for all 6 focal lengths you quickly get a lot higher than 10k! But 'value'...Show more →
Vern,
By the way, I am sorry that I did not say Thank you for running the tests.
As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the limited production of most Leica lenses, now M and in the case of the MATE this lens is discontinued and out of production.
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for sharing the shots Vern. Very nice to see some examples from the MATE. I have always wondered how it would do on the Sony A7 series cameras. It looks like it has good sharpness. There is a bit of CA (more than I would like), however. I guess that would probably clean up well, so it may not bother some very much at all. It does look like a quite small and viable solution.Unfortunately the MATE frequently/usually? sells used on Ebay for somewhere between $3800 and $5,000+ and the WATE for close to $5,000. So, if the lens is found to perform well on the A7, A7r, and the A7s you too can have the 2 lenses for between about $9,000 and $10,000 used.
Rich
Other than the lenses being slow at f/4, when you look at Leica options for all 6 focal lengths you quickly get a lot higher than 10k! But 'value'...Show more →
Vern,
By the way, I am sorry that I did not say Thank you for running the tests.
As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the limited production of most Leica lenses, now M and in the case of the MATE this lens is discontinued and out of production.
Rich
Dec 01, 2014 at 05:48 AM
p.1 #13The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
johnctharp wrote:
I was surprised to see so much CA on the MATE- so I guess it bothers me.
But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
Yes - I think the Sony does correct for it. When shooting the Olympus OM18 against the WATE at 18, the Oly has way more. I'll be posting that test soon too. And you're right, easily fixable with the PlayMemories LensCompensation app.
I was surprised to see so much CA on the MATE- so I guess it bothers me
.But it isn't bad, and should be fairly easy to correct all things considered. Also, isn't the Sony technically corrected for CA?
Yes - I think the Sony does correct for it. When shooting the Olympus OM18 against the WATE at 18, the Oly has way more. I'll be posting that test soon too.
And you're right, easily fixable with the PlayMemories LensCompensation app.Dec 01, 2014 at 08:29 AM
p.1 #14The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
naturephoto1 wrote:
By the way, I am sorry that I did not say Thank you for running the tests.
As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the...Show more →
Yes Rich, I totally get that. It's a TON of cash for me too. I only own about 5 lenses right now that are worth anything so that helps keep my total investment reasonable, but it's still a pile of cash. I've decided that I love photography and I'll only live once. Ever since owning a Leica M8.2 I've known that some day I'll own another Leica rangefinder - I absolutely loved the experience.
The guy I bought my MATE from has all the Leica R telephoto lenses - the following complete set new in boxes:
http://www.apotelyt.com/at-image/leica-apo-telyt-r-module-280-800mm-460x307.png
I don't think he's ever used them - if so, not much! And he is also not a rich guy but just loves Leica I guess.
.
By the way, I am sorry that I did not say Thank you for running the tests.
As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the...Show more →
Yes Rich, I totally get that.
It's a TON of cash for me too. I only own about 5 lenses right now that are worth anything so that helps keep my total investment reasonable, but it's still a pile of cash. I've decided that I love photography and I'll only live once. Ever since owning a Leica M8.2 I've known that some day I'll own another Leica rangefinder - I absolutely loved the experience.The guy I bought my MATE from has all the Leica R telephoto lenses - the following complete set new in boxes:
http://www.apotelyt.com/at-image/leica-apo-telyt-r-module-280-800mm-460x307.png
I don't think he's ever used them - if so, not much! And he is also not a rich guy but just loves Leica I guess.
.Dec 01, 2014 at 08:44 AM
p.1 #15The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern Dewit wrote:
As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the limited production of most Leica lenses, now M and in the case of the MATE this lens is discontinued and out of production.
RichYes Rich, I totally get that. It's a TON of cash for me too. I only own about 5 lenses right now that are worth anything so that helps keep my total investment reasonable, but it's still a pile of cash. I've decided that I love photography and I'll only live once. Ever since owning a Leica M8.2 I've known that some day I'll own another Leica rangefinder - I absolutely loved the experience.
The guy I bought my MATE from has all the Leica R telephoto lenses - the following complete set new in boxes:
http://www.apotelyt.com/at-image/leica-apo-telyt-r-module-280-800mm-460x307.png
I don't think he's...Show more →
Vern,
I was fortunate that Leica Camera USA loaned me the R Apo Modular System composed of the Larger optics making up the 400 f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 lenses for a month in 1998. Absolutely stunning pieces of expensive and heavy glass. Leica Camera USA used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800mm lens. I wished that I could have afforded them. The price of the 800mm Apo Modular lens components alone at the time was as I recall over $16,000 new. My understanding is that the unit that I used eventually ended up in the hands of a photographer out in Montana or Wyoming and used for photographing wolves in Yellowstone.
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
By the way, I am sorry that I did not say Thank you for running the tests.As to the what you paid for the 2 lenses, I appreciate that, but most here on the forum would not be so fortunate for the pricing. As to the cost of the big, heavy, generally fast Tele lenses used by many Wildlife and Sports Photographers, those lenses are expected to be so costly due to the amount of actual glass (and often special glass used), the speed of the lenses, and the limited production of such optics.
There is no question though regarding the limited production of most Leica lenses, now M and in the case of the MATE this lens is discontinued and out of production.
Rich
It's a TON of cash for me too. I only own about 5 lenses right now that are worth anything so that helps keep my total investment reasonable, but it's still a pile of cash. I've decided that I love photography and I'll only live once. Ever since owning a Leica M8.2 I've known that some day I'll own another Leica rangefinder - I absolutely loved the experience.The guy I bought my MATE from has all the Leica R telephoto lenses - the following complete set new in boxes:
http://www.apotelyt.com/at-image/leica-apo-telyt-r-module-280-800mm-460x307.png
I don't think he's...Show more →
Vern,
I was fortunate that Leica Camera USA loaned me the R Apo Modular System composed of the Larger optics making up the 400 f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 lenses for a month in 1998. Absolutely stunning pieces of expensive and heavy glass. Leica Camera USA used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800mm lens. I wished that I could have afforded them. The price of the 800mm Apo Modular lens components alone at the time was as I recall over $16,000 new. My understanding is that the unit that I used eventually ended up in the hands of a photographer out in Montana or Wyoming and used for photographing wolves in Yellowstone.
Rich
Dec 01, 2014 at 09:03 AM
p.1 #16The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
naturephoto1 wrote:
I was fortunate that Leica Camera USA loaned me the R Apo Modular System composed of the Larger optics making up the 400 f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 lenses for a month in 1998. Absolutely stunning pieces of expensive and heavy glass. Leica Camera USA used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800mm lens. I wished that I could have afforded them. The price of the 800mm Apo Modular lens components alone at the time was as I recall over $16,000 new. My understanding is that the unit that I used eventually ended up in the...Show more →
Cool! Well, if you're interested he's selling the whole set if you want it...
I was fortunate that Leica Camera USA loaned me the R Apo Modular System composed of the Larger optics making up the 400 f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 lenses for a month in 1998. Absolutely stunning pieces of expensive and heavy glass. Leica Camera USA used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800mm lens. I wished that I could have afforded them. The price of the 800mm Apo Modular lens components alone at the time was as I recall over $16,000 new. My understanding is that the unit that I used eventually ended up in the...Show more →
Cool! Well, if you're interested he's selling the whole set if you want it...
Dec 01, 2014 at 09:13 AM
p.1 #17The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern Dewit wrote:
RichCool! Well, if you're interested he's selling the whole set if you want it...
Vern,
Thanks very much for the heads up. I think that I have seen the whole sets selling for somewhere about $32,000 and I am not sure of the condition. At this point in my life, carrying that much weight would slow me down so much or quite possibly kill me trying to carry it. And that is not even taking into account the price; my wife would kill me. Either way, death would be quite likely. 
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
I was fortunate that Leica Camera USA loaned me the R Apo Modular System composed of the Larger optics making up the 400 f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 lenses for a month in 1998. Absolutely stunning pieces of expensive and heavy glass. Leica Camera USA used 2 of the bird photos that I took with the 800mm lens. I wished that I could have afforded them. The price of the 800mm Apo Modular lens components alone at the time was as I recall over $16,000 new. My understanding is that the unit that I used eventually ended up in the hands of a photographer out in Montana or Wyoming and used for photographing wolves in Yellowstone.Rich
Vern,
Thanks very much for the heads up. I think that I have seen the whole sets selling for somewhere about $32,000 and I am not sure of the condition. At this point in my life, carrying that much weight would slow me down so much or quite possibly kill me trying to carry it. And that is not even taking into account the price; my wife would kill me.
Either way, death would be quite likely. Rich
Dec 01, 2014 at 09:16 AM
p.1 #18The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
I forgot to mention an important detail about the MATE that had me very worried for a few minutes. I got the red Metabones M-->NEX adapter with my WATE and tried using it with the MATE. For some reason, the adapter got stuck on the lens!
I literally had to take the adapter apart to get it off the MATE - I was pretty worried.
When I use my Fotodiox adapter the MATE works like a charm and easily comes off. I've used the Metabones with the WATE after putting it back together it works with the WATE no problem.
Weird!
I literally had to take the adapter apart to get it off the MATE - I was pretty worried.
When I use my Fotodiox adapter the MATE works like a charm and easily comes off. I've used the Metabones with the WATE after putting it back together it works with the WATE no problem.
Weird!
Dec 01, 2014 at 04:24 PM
p.1 #19The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
I had a brief stint with the MATE on the A7 but I wasn't as thrilled or maybe I got myself a dud. For an f4 lens it was very weak at wide open and CA was quite strong. Sure, stopped down a lot CA was slightly less but for me the MATE was the all-time low in a streak of highs with Leica lenses, tested with three adapters. Considering how well regarded it is on Leica M I was surprised by how mediocre it was, it was like having a 28-35-50 f8 lens - it definitely put me off any attempts at the WATE though they are of course different lenses altogether.
There are several MATE's available used in the UK at the moment but personally I can't recommend a lens that is arguably worse than the kit lenses on Sony.
But Vern, I am really glad you like your copy and I hope it serves you well! For the size and ergonomics there is a lot to like about it.
There are several MATE's available used in the UK at the moment but personally I can't recommend a lens that is arguably worse than the kit lenses on Sony.
But Vern, I am really glad you like your copy and I hope it serves you well! For the size and ergonomics there is a lot to like about it.
Dec 02, 2014 at 01:18 AM
p.1 #20The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Could the fact that the A7S has a 12mp sensor made the CA in the MATE less appearant than it would have been on a 24mp or 36mp sensor?
Dec 02, 2014 at 04:18 AM