Tri-Elmar, MATE or WATE

[Efra1]

Hi, I know this question can be absurd, but I have the chance to buy a tri-elmar, the thing is I´m not shure to chose the 16-18-21 or the 28-35-50, My current wide angle lens is a 21 Elmarit, so with the 16-18-21 I win 2 new focals, but thinking in the future M9 that we supousse will be a FF, maybe the WATE will be TOO wide.
The MATE 28-35-50, I already have all this lens but the idea to have the 3 in just 1 lens seduce me.
The problen with the WATE is some small marks on coating of front element, but I thing this will not cause any image quality degree.

What do you thing??
Is better the WATE (this is coded)
Or I choose the MATE in better condition but not coded, (this one I´m not shure if it is V. 2)

 

[_goodtimez]

I'd go for the MATE since I think the WATE as a too narrow focal range. In fact i had a MATE up to a year ago. Fantastic Lens. The only reason I had to sold it was to compensate for a loss of money which was stolen to me. Now being filthy again I would like to buy one.
However, if you have corresponding prime lenses, you will find they are better sizewise. From the image quality, no difference in true life.

 

[JNewell]

I bought a MATE for an RD-1. (Keep reading.) Nice pics but manual changing of the framelines was a bore. Sold the RD-1 and tried to sell the MATE (no takers at US$2200). The MATE didn't seem to offer much advantage for film.

Bought an M8 and, whoaaa! Those nice pics were all of a sudden really nice, and the convenience of automatic frameline changing and a significant reduction in the number of dust entry opportunities really got me thinking. I found that the convenience of being able to change framing without having to move around was great, and the files are Leica at its best.

The WATE is nice, but is after all WA and commits you to a separate VF/RF relationship. The MATE covers a nice range of focal lengths, all of which appear in the M8 finder.

What primes offer me, and the reason I've still got a 35/2 ASPH, 50/1.4 and 90/2 AA is speed, which is the one thing the MATE (and WATE) just don't offer.

 

[Efra1]

I'd go for the MATE since I think the WATE as a too narrow focal range. In fact i had a MATE up to a year ago. Fantastic Lens. The only reason I had to sold it was to compensate for a loss of money which was stolen to me. Now being filthy again I would like to buy one.
However, if you have corresponding prime lenses, you will find they are better sizewise. From the image quality, no difference in true life.

Yes, I think the WATE is too wide in my M film cameras, the quatity of the tri-elmar is good I suppouse.

I bought a MATE for an RD-1. (Keep reading.) Nice pics but manual changing of the framelines was a bore. Sold the RD-1 and tried to sell the MATE (no takers at US$2200). The MATE didn't seem to offer much advantage for film.

Bought an M8 and, whoaaa! Those nice pics were all of a sudden really nice, and the convenience of automatic frameline changing and a significant reduction in the number of dust entry opportunities really got me thinking. I found that the convenience of being able to change framing without having to move around was great, and the files are Leica at its best.

The WATE is nice, but is after all WA and commits you to a separate VF/RF relationship. The MATE covers a nice range of focal lengths, all of which appear in the M8 finder.

What primes offer me, and the reason I've still got a 35/2 ASPH, 50/1.4 and 90/2 AA is speed, which is the one thing the MATE (and WATE) just don't offer.

Thanks, I think I´ll buy the MATE, even I have prime lens in the same focal, but as you say they give me speed.

I.ll let you know when I recive and post some pics.

Thanks again

 

[Ben Z]

My take, having owned the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar, is twofold:

1. The difference in FOV between focal lengths tends to diminish as the focal lengths increase. On the M8, the crop factor diminishes the practical look of the difference in FOV between 28-35-50 even more than on film.

2. At the (effectively longer) focal lengths on the M8, the maximum aperture of f/4 forced using of higher ISO more frequently in order not to have shutter speeds too slow for sharp handholding.

I don't regret selling mine at all, other than as with other lenses, wish I'd held onto it another year because I could've gotten a lot more $$$ for it. I paid $1250 for mine, a second-version!

As to the 16-18-21, the price of that lens even used now, is beyond what I consider reasonable for me to spend. There are numerous other options in 21mm that are at once faster and cheaper, and for the limited times I have use for <21mm, I'm happy with the tiny 15mm Voitlander. Remember too that unlike the 28-35-50, the 16-18-21 does not automatically tell the M8 which focal length is in use, you have to input it manually each time you change focal length in order that the M8 will apply the proper amount of cyan corner correction. For me when I borrowed the lens, that was a deal-breaker.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

I had a mate for a few months but sold it. It's just too slow.
You say you have a 21 and a few other primes? I'd think you have everything you need. save the money for the M9 (you'll need it) and go out shooting.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[George S.]

You already have a 21. Have you had much of a need for a wider view? 21mm and under lenses are not easy for a lot of people to shoot. The WATE may be a waste of your money.

The MATE is very convenient for daylight and well lit scenes, but beyond that, you'll wish it was faster than F4. If you already didn't have those focal lengths covered, I'd say buy it, but beyond a bit of daylight convenience, the money could be better used on other things, don't you think?

 

[JNewell]

The point about "sufficient light" vs. "available light" is real, and neither TE is an available light lens. The other big consideration is whether you feel like having that much cash soaked up in a single lens of modest aperture. All I can tell you is that I'm having a ton of fun with the MATE and although it isn't necessarily the best match for what I tend to use Ms for it still makes great pics in a variety of circumstances. FWIW, there's a feature article on LL on the M8 in Marrakech with the MATE and another review of the M8 in which the author opines that if he could only own one camera and one lens, it would be an M8 and MATE. So while valid points are made above, I will maintain that I'm not crazy! 😉

 

[AusDLK]

The MATE (I prefer to call it the "Tri-Elmar") is the best single Leica lens IMHO for film Leicas.

I find that I don't use it that often on the M8.2 though.

I also have a WATE and think it is a pain. I don't have to say much about the FrankenFinder. On the M8, you have to push button on the back of the camera each time you change focal lengths (no automatic coupling like the Tri-Elmar) if you want the camera to know what you've set.

Of course, you have to change the focal length settings on the FrankenFinder too if you use one.

The saving grace for the WATE may be on the RD-1 which I am trying now. Using either the ZI 25/28mm finder or the CV 28/35mm finder I get a reasonable set of frame lines for two of the three focal lengths.

I may sell the WATE but the Tri-Elmar remains. If there is an M9 then bingo. If not, it's there for my M7s.

 

[baycrest]

I've also got the MATE, and other faster lens which cover the same FL.
I use it primarily for well lit outdoor pictures, when travelling to reduce lens changes, for convenience sake. It works well under these conditions.

It is slow, so if you can live with that, or double up with some faster primes, then that's a plan. For myself, I've doubled up. 😀

Best Rob

 

[f16sunshine]

Sorry to drift from topic slightly. The dual hex 21/35mm is really a perfect multiple FL for rd1 or m8. I'm really enjoying the flexibilty. This lens is a gem and silky smooth in use. Willpost some samples in a day or two if any interest. 🙂