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.2 #1The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
kosmoskatten wrote:
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.
That's a pretty strong statement. I've used the FE28-70 and own the FE24-70 and can without hesitation say that on the A7S, the MATE is the better lens at 28, 35 and 50 - by quite a bit! But obviously this isn't always the case. I just think your statement has to be balanced a bit.
The thing people are missing is that the 24-70 is auto corrected for CA and that I did 4 complete sets with it - trying to make it as good as possible, before it even came close to matching the MATE - and the MATE is simply hyperfocused at 1.5m. That says something right there. And to my eyes the left hand center of the comparisons clearly show the 24-70 being soft while the MATE is still sharp. YMMV, as always.
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.
That's a pretty strong statement. I've used the FE28-70 and own the FE24-70 and can without hesitation say that on the A7S, the MATE is the better lens at 28, 35 and 50 - by quite a bit! But obviously this isn't always the case. I just think your statement has to be balanced a bit.
The thing people are missing is that the 24-70 is auto corrected for CA and that I did 4 complete sets with it - trying to make it as good as possible, before it even came close to matching the MATE - and the MATE is simply hyperfocused at 1.5m. That says something right there. And to my eyes the left hand center of the comparisons clearly show the 24-70 being soft while the MATE is still sharp. YMMV, as always.
Dec 02, 2014 at 08:28 AM
p.2 #2The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
It appears most around $1000 lenses these days carry so many asph surfaces in them that lateral CA is just about gone. The new Sony and Canon wide slow zooms being examples. CA correction is not the panacea it is sometimes made out to be, once past a fairly low threshold. A personal view maybe.
Dec 04, 2014 at 05:29 AM
p.2 #3The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern Dewit wrote:
That's a pretty strong statement. I've used the FE28-70 and own the FE24-70 and can without hesitation say that on the A7S, the MATE is the better lens at 28, 35 and 50 - by quite a bit! But obviously this isn't always the case. I just think your statement has to be balanced a bit.
The thing people are missing is that the 24-70 is auto corrected for CA and that I did 4 complete sets with it - trying to make it as good as possible, before it even came close to matching the MATE - and...Show more →
Vern, well, I just call it is I see it. I don't think it is a strong or even bold statement.
Of course I _wanted_ to love it. I paid dearly for it and had really high hopes for it. But I can't lie about my findings. I was quite disappointed and in my case the field curvature and CA I think is excessive for such an expensive and frankly, slow, lens. It had to be stopped down quite a bit to start catching up in the corners with some smearing still present - thanks to the Sony sensor glass of course.
We can always argue that I got a lemon but I am not so sure, I see similarities in your test shots. I think Leica has pretty good QC on their modern lenses and mine came with the certificates. And I tried three different adapters, all of which have worked well with other M/ZM lenses. Since I tried it against other lenses on the same adapters I am quite sure it wasn't the adapters. The Ricoh GR was tossed in for good measure and it was leaps and bounds over the MATE right from wide open.
I would have liked to see how it performs on the M system but I haven't got access to one and I am not willing to go that route again.
kosmoskatten wrote
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.The thing people are missing is that the 24-70 is auto corrected for CA and that I did 4 complete sets with it - trying to make it as good as possible, before it even came close to matching the MATE - and...Show more →
Vern, well, I just call it is I see it. I don't think it is a strong or even bold statement.
Of course I _wanted_ to love it. I paid dearly for it and had really high hopes for it. But I can't lie about my findings. I was quite disappointed and in my case the field curvature and CA I think is excessive for such an expensive and frankly, slow, lens. It had to be stopped down quite a bit to start catching up in the corners with some smearing still present - thanks to the Sony sensor glass of course.
We can always argue that I got a lemon but I am not so sure, I see similarities in your test shots. I think Leica has pretty good QC on their modern lenses and mine came with the certificates. And I tried three different adapters, all of which have worked well with other M/ZM lenses. Since I tried it against other lenses on the same adapters I am quite sure it wasn't the adapters. The Ricoh GR was tossed in for good measure and it was leaps and bounds over the MATE right from wide open.
I would have liked to see how it performs on the M system but I haven't got access to one and I am not willing to go that route again.
Dec 04, 2014 at 09:41 AM
p.2 #4The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Vern: the MATE might fare much better on the A7s of course.
I am only reporting my findings with my A7. For the A7 I would simply not recommend the MATE.
I am only reporting my findings with my A7. For the A7 I would simply not recommend the MATE.
Dec 04, 2014 at 09:43 AM
p.2 #5The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
kosmoskatten wrote:
Vern: the MATE might fare much better on the A7s of course.
I am only reporting my findings with my A7. For the A7 I would simply not recommend the MATE.
Fair enough! Each to his or her own. I am planning to try this lens on a Leica M next year, which is half the reason for buying it. I've also noticed that I get a very dirty sensor when changing prime lenses in the field and as good as the Sony FE lenses are, they're very bulky. So the WATE and MATE make sense for me to try.
Vern: the MATE might fare much better on the A7s of course.
I am only reporting my findings with my A7. For the A7 I would simply not recommend the MATE.
Fair enough! Each to his or her own. I am planning to try this lens on a Leica M next year, which is half the reason for buying it. I've also noticed that I get a very dirty sensor when changing prime lenses in the field and as good as the Sony FE lenses are, they're very bulky. So the WATE and MATE make sense for me to try.
Dec 04, 2014 at 09:57 AM
p.2 #6The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Hmm, if the MATE is hitting its limit around 12MP, I am not sure how well it would do on an M9/M. Maybe test it in advance before building a strategy around it. The WATE is a whole different ballgame, much newer and stronger lens, and a true zoom, which can be set in between detents on the A7.
Dec 04, 2014 at 12:50 PM
p.2 #7The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, if the MATE is hitting its limit around 12MP, I am not sure how well it would do on an M9/M. Maybe test it in advance before building a strategy around it. The WATE is a whole different ballgame, much newer and stronger lens, and a true zoom, which can be set in between detents on the A7.
I'm sure it'll be just fine... If not, I sell and make $1k since I got it 'cheap'. No fuss, no muss.
Hmm, if the MATE is hitting its limit around 12MP, I am not sure how well it would do on an M9/M. Maybe test it in advance before building a strategy around it. The WATE is a whole different ballgame, much newer and stronger lens, and a true zoom, which can be set in between detents on the A7.
I'm sure it'll be just fine...
If not, I sell and make $1k since I got it 'cheap'. No fuss, no muss. Dec 04, 2014 at 01:35 PM
p.2 #8The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
If I have time this weekend I think I'll run a test with the MATE against the FE again, this time I'll use the Lens Corrections app to correct for CA...
Dec 04, 2014 at 01:37 PM
p.2 #9The Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 (MATE) on the Sony A7S (Some largish Images)
Look forward to it Vern.
Dec 05, 2014 at 09:47 AM