Leica tri elmar MATE

[Enzokoh]

Hi all,seeking some help and also asking for opinion.The 28,35,50 tri elmar max stop is at f4 while the 50 summicrons max stop is at f2.Would the picture be alot of difference shooting with the MATE at f4 and shooting the 50 crons at f2 under bright condition?I would like to know if the tri elmar would be able to produce nice bokeh even at f4?Also if i usually don't shoot in low light condition would f4 be enough to get very smooth and creamy bokeh?Or only the faster lens like the noctilux,summilux and the summicron would be able to produce very nice bokeh effects?Thanks in advance.

 

[hookonclassic]

Hi...Enzokoh...creamy bokeh is the out of focus rendition due to shallow depth of field...and shallow depth of field can be achieved by using
a) large aperture (i.e. fast lens < f2)
b) long focal lens (i.e. tele lens)
c) moving very close to the subject (i.e. macro photography)
d) having a larger sensor or film format (i.e. large format)

To answer your question directly...the 28-35-50 MATE of f4 will not produce a similar creamy bokeh of a Summicron not to mention a Summilux or Noctilux...in addition, the MATE minimum focus distance is 1 meter...

However, the MATE is a useful lens to carry for travel scenery shots during daytime...a sharp lens with very high resolving power indeed...

 

[Enzokoh]

Thank you for the fast reply.So meaning for sharp images the MATE is still a very good lens ya?And i suppose good for travelling too

 

[newghost]

can also do a search on flickr, lots of pics taken with this lens and you'll get some idea there...

 

[pixelbrain]

This review should be helpful..

 

[Enzokoh]

Alright,i search later.Btw any master here got any idea or experiences the e differences btw the e49 and the e55?

 

[Hacker]

No difference optically. Second version is smaller with dof markings. Has a focusing tab also.

 

[artspraken]

I dun believe in this kind of lens. Its like zoom lens. For the flexility you compromise on the speed. 28 35 50 the difference is only a few steps.

For f4 lens it rather sems to defeat purpose of using leica. Got abit that feeling

 

[newghost]

If i recall, Enzokoh's shooting genre is mainly his newborn baby right? (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong)
I don't quite think this lens is suitable, honestly...

 

[artspraken]

Would the picture be alot of difference shooting with the MATE at f4 and shooting the 50 crons at f2 under bright condition?

Yes. F4 and F2 is big difference.

 

[gommy]

I dun believe in this kind of lens. Its like zoom lens. For the flexility you compromise on the speed. 28 35 50 the difference is only a few steps.

For f4 lens it rather sems to defeat purpose of using leica. Got abit that feeling

It's actually a very good lens for travel & street. For street & if you want to be disgreet, most of the time you're not going to be shooting f1.4 or f2 cos of shallower DOF. It's often f4 or 5.6 and zone focus and the MATE is actually quite good when you want to change focal length on the move. This apply to WATE as well:angel:
This is taken with WATE @21 set to f5.6 & prefocus at about 2m

 

[artspraken]

With due respect, i disagree.

In my opinion, just because the elmar is f4 does not make it good for street. This is because (i) got many cheaper lenses at f4 and (ii) not all street and travel involve zone focusing (iii) the compromise in speed in exchange for a 3 focal length flexibilty - do u really need 3 lens of so close focal length together? For theses reasons im not really a fan of elmar

For the OP who ask specifically about bokeh, definitely the f4 is not as good achoice as f2 or f1.4 lens. Bokeh will be considerably less. F4 is alot sharper

 

[gommy]

With due respect, i disagree.

In my opinion, just because the elmar is f4 does not make it good for street. This is because (i) got many cheaper lenses at f4 and (ii) not all street and travel involve zone focusing (iii) the compromise in speed in exchange for a 3 focal length flexibilty - do u really need 3 lens of so close focal length together? For theses reasons im not really a fan of elmar

For the OP who ask specifically about bokeh, definitely the f4 is not as good achoice as f2 or f1.4 lens. Bokeh will be considerably less. F4 is alot sharper

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just sharing my thots and from a slightly different perspective
Just one point: Focal length may be close & of course, you can step back & forth to get the angle of coverage. Coverage may be the same but perspective of the photo will be different. This is especially so with WATE even closer focal lengths, 16-18-21mm, but the perspective is vastly different which may impact the outcome of the photo.

 

[zixaw]

I like this lens, thanks to 1 short poi... uh coffee session with Gommy, I hunted high and low for this lens. Finally managed to find a mint one in Shanghai.

Given a choice, I will prefer individual Summilux or Summicrons, but I will never carry all 3 lenses with me. On the other hand, I will carry this lens with me all the time in the day.

 

[blacvios]

Here's a good read on the MATE

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/11/the-leica-mate-lens-review-medium-angle-tri-elmar-by-ashwin-rao/


,,,

 

[Cactus jACK]

Here's a good read on the MATE

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/11/the-leica-mate-lens-review-medium-angle-tri-elmar-by-ashwin-rao/

good read.

there is naturally a huge difference between shooting at f/4 and f/2. but on the question, "Would the picture be alot of difference shooting with the MATE at f/4 and shooting the 50 crons at f/2 under bright condition?" - unless you're using ND filters, you are not likely to be shooting at f/2 under bright sunny conditions, you may also get undersired diffusion shooting fast lenses wide open in bright sunny conditions. consider the sunny16 rule, iso100~1/125~f/16. opening to f/2 would require a shutter speed of 1/8000sec.

without ND filters, chances are, you are likely to drop to at around f/4 - f/8. in which case, the question of the relative preformance of the 2 lenses (tri-elmar vs cron) at f/4, f/5.6... and so on, would then be relavant, and i think that there is little between the tri-elmar and the cron at these apertures.

"I would like to know if the tri elmar would be able to produce nice bokeh even at f4?" - the tri-elmar is not best suited for bokeh, where the faster cron, lux, noc, nokton, etc would be preferred - the tri-elmar is more of a "story-telling" lens. while it can still produce some bokeh (given the combination of near subject and far background), but if you're style "requires" your subject to pop, you may prefer to opt for faster lenses.