REVIEWS - Leica 28-35-50mm F4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH (E49)

OVERVIEW

For this review I decided to use the lens for a couple months, go to my usual spots and show the lens in a good light - literally. And maybe debunk some of the Leica 28-35-50mm F4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH's negative press. The goal was to show what the MATE could do. That “goal” unintentionally morphed into a personal challenge. If the lens had a good weekend, that motivated me to do it again the next weekend. All the pictures were taken with Leica's current Monochrom, the Leica M Monochrom Typ 246. That means fun with red filters and stacking polarizers from time to time.

LENS HOODS & FILTERS

Cutting straight to the meat of the review, lens flare has not been a problem with 28mm or 35mm, just 50mm. While there might be inherent design shortcomings increasing the lens' propensity to flare, in my experience the problem is the shallow lens hood. The lens hood has to be shallow enough to not vignette at 28mm, and small enough to avoid blocking the rangefinder windows. Thus a tiny hood which is not very effective at 50mm. Ergo… flare.

However, in my day-to-day use the more pressing issue has been filters. If using a single filter 49mm filter, there might be minor shading at 28mm in the extreme corners, but nothing problematic. It is worth noting that Leica made a specific E49 slim UV filter (#13329). Problems begin when using Leica's 49-67mm set-up ring, which has cut-outs. Those cut outs allow light enter behind the filter, bounce off the backside of the filter and cause flare and/or reflections.

If stacking a red filter and polarizer, that stack will vignette heavily if using the MATE's E49 front filter thread, thus the 49-67mm step-up ring is needed. To avoid reflections, I use a B+W 49-67mm step up ring (no cut-outs). If shooting at an oblique angle to the sun, sunlight glances off the filters and tends to streak. Thus a lens hood is needed. The Contax 67-86mm ring almost does the job, but slightly vignettes at 28mm, so still searching for a vignette-free solution. Frankly, I think 28mm will always show a slight vignette if using a filter or step-up ring.

If shooting without filters, then a deeper lens hood is all that is really needed. The B+W 49-67mm ring + Contax 67-86 Metal Ring works at 28mm. Attaching the Contax #4 Metal Hood usually takes care of 50mm. I wrote "usually" because the lens flare seemingly strikes from nowhere sometimes, such as mid-afternoon sunlight bouncing off the roadway. Despite my best effort, flare still manages to worm its way in from time to time.

Using the step-up rings and lens shade completely obfuscates the rangefinder windows, but that is a non-issue since I always focus with the Leica EVF-2 when using red filters. Lastly, bear in mind all this hub-bub about filters, vignetting, etc. is unique to my situation and stacking filters with the Leica M Monochrom Typ 246 to maximize contrast at time of capture. Whereas the flare is a universal issue, likely due to the shallow lens hood.

PERFORMANCE

Moving onto sharpness and such, the MATE can be surprisingly good. Sharpness at F4 can be hit or miss mostly due to the lens' F4 maximum aperture coupled with using the EVF for focus. F4 inherently has a healthy amount of depth of field, especially so at 28mm and 35mm. Seeing critical focus with the Leica M Monochrom Typ 246's low resolution EVF can be very difficult. Thus, sometimes I place focus too far forwards or backwards, and that undermines the sharpness.

When focus is well placed, and the light and contrast are photographically pleasing, the results can look really good - even at F4. Using the red filter + polarizer robs some sharpness and definition, so stopping down helps. Most of my landscapes are shot F8, and occasionally F11. At F8-11 the MATE's edges and corners are sharp and well defined. The MATE is definitely capable of sharp, highly detailed images. Especially so at F8 and F11.

As for lens draw, I like the MATE's character at 28mm. 28mm is probably the MATE's strongest focal length. 35mm is neither good nor bad. Usually I am ping-ponging between 28 & 50mm, so 35mm sees the least use. I use 50mm because I want the its reach or 50mm just works for the composition. If the background is really far behind the plane of focus, then the 50mm has some bokeh and a bit character, but it does not come remotely close to matching the Leica 50mm F1.4 Summilux-M ASPH or Leica 50mm F2 Summicron-M APO.

Being an F4 lens, the MATE is always going to render a moderate amount of depth of field. And as such, I have role-cast the MATE as a landscape lens. When shooting primes and keeping diffraction at bay, I generally do not stop down past F5.6. While the MATE is sharp at F4, it seems to hit its stride at F8. Maybe diffraction is taking its toll, but I do not see any obvious loss detail or lack of definition. If I think a picture will benefit from added depth of field, I use F11 without any reservations.

If likely to be shooting in low-light conditions, the MATE is a non-starter for me. The F4 aperture is simply too slow. The Leica M Monochrom Typ 246 will be pegged at ISO 25,000 in most cases - and still be wanting more ISO.

CONCLUSION

Being the geek that I am, the novelty of the tri-focal length mechanism amuses me. There are only three such lenses - the MATE, WATE and Konica 21/35 Hexanon. Within rangefinder circles these are unique lenses. If being more objective, given the MATE’s price, maintenance costs, slow aperture and marginal performance, it is easy to dismiss the MATE. On the other hand, I have web page full images here that do not suck. There is nothing about them that is sub par in terms of sharpness, contrast, definition, etc. If judging the MATE solely on these pictures, I would say it did a good job.

Having 28mm, 35mm and 50mm in one lens is convenient. With the MATE I am more likely to experiment with different compositions because switching focal lengths is easier vs swapping lenses. I consider the MATE a “sharp lens”, especially if stopping down to F8’ish. Most days flare is a non-issue and I congratulate myself on taming the beast. Other days flare seems inescapable. I would wager on a happy owner being somebody appreciates the MATE’s utility, the novelty of owning a Tri-Elmar, and is willing work around flare if it happens. In other words, you need to be able to turn a blind eye to the MATE's shortcomings.

Overall, the MATE's use case is fairly narrow in my opinion - no bokeh, no low light, mostly stopped down landscapes, and a big lens hood set-up (of my own doing to combat flare). The MATE is an expensive lens and in practical use, needs to be paired with a fast prime for low-light and perhaps for bokeh reasons as well. So if carrying a MATE plus a prime, where is the net benefit? This is probably the MATE’s biggest undoing. YMMV

In hindsight I am impressed with the MATE's performance as shown on this webpage, but I also could have accomplished the same with my bottomless bag of Leica M primes. So the MATE was ultimately traded towards some new Leica toys. That is not so much an indictment of the lens' performance, but more about the MATE not bringing much net value to my kit.