What's the WATE's Appeal?

[Mathias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been considering (while saving up) of purchasing a WATE for the past couple of weeks. I wanted the lens so much that sometimes I dream about it in my sleep!

 

 

So anyway, I've decided that I'll purchase one after all. However, now that I am able to purchase the lens, I am confused on what attracted me to the lens in the 1st place! Sure, some clamor "genius", while others condemned the WATE with its adjustable focal lengths. But does anyone who owns the WATE really change focal lengths numerous times during a day of shooting? Isn't it a little tedious to adjust the focal length & Frankenfinder (especially the finder, which from my limited Leica knowledge needs changing everytime our focus distance is adjusted)? And IMO the 16-18-21 are too close together to see any significant differences; am I mistaken? Whereas the MATE offers a much better focal length gaps, so I can get the appeal of the MATE much more than the WATE.

 

 

So for all those WATE users and those who've experienced using it, I guess my question is: what is it about the WATE that makes it worth buying? What is its strength and the ultimate appeal in owning one?

 

Sorry for the length of the post, it's my first thread! Cheers~ **Sorry, for some odd reason, all the paragraph spacings that I typed doesn't show (posted from mobile phone)**

[Xmas]

Hi Mathias

 

Welcome to forum - note the paragraph spacings are ok....

 

Instant collector, keep it in its box...

 

Noel

[ohnri]

But does anyone who owns the WATE really change focal lengths numerous times during a day of shooting? Isn't it a little tedious to adjust the focal length & Frankenfinder (especially the finder, which from my limited Leica knowledge needs changing everytime our focus distance is adjusted)? And IMO the 16-18-21 are too close together to see any significant differences; am I mistaken?

 

The WATE is a very high quality super wide with great versatility. Think about it this way, no one would think that a 16mm and a 21mm lens are so close together that the difference is negligible. In fact, the increased coverage at the wide end is really significant.

 

Once you commit to the Frankenfinder it is simplicity itself to change focal lengths.

 

As an aside, the WATE is my only lens that I use an external finder with. I don't use one with my 21mm lux but I have found the spirit level in the finder to be quite helpful at 16mm.

 

Having said that, I am about to go on a brief trip and I will be packing the 21 lux whereas I previously would have taken the WATE.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[jonoslack]

HI Mathias

I love my WATE - there may not be such a big difference in focal length, but there is a big difference in feel. Without the WATE I'd certainly want a 21 together with something wider. Added to which, whereas the MATE does mean some compromise in image quality, even at smaller apertures, the WATE really doesn't seem to.

The Frankenfinder is also a thing of wonder (if not of beauty).

[adan]

When the WATE came out it didn't have much appeal for me - I already had a 15 and 21, and my 21 was a stop faster.

 

Realistically, the WATE was a quick and relatively easy way for Leica to provide "21" and "24" focal lengths for the M8 (and tossing in "28mm" as a freeby) - rather than designing, building and cataloging 2 or more separate lenses. If it weren't for the M8's crop, I doubt it would have seen the light of day. Personally, I held out hoping for a 16 or 17 f/2.8 - but the M9 came along instead.

 

At this point, for the M9, the WATE is still the best way to get 16mm coverage (the c/v 15 has color-drift problems, even thought it is pretty sharp). I don't need 16mm or 18mm, and DO need f/2.8 - so the WATE STILL doesn't have much appeal for me.

 

But if you can use any two of the focal lengths, and f/4 is adequate, it is certainly a bargain compared to buying two prime lenses in that range. And without any performace hit, as Jono notes.

[ho_co]

Super lens.

 

No need to adjust the universal finder when you change focus. For anything over 2 m distance, leave its parallax tilt set to infinity. If you're working closer than 2 m, you'll find the other settings (1 m, 0.7 m, 0.5 m) helpful, not a pain. Remember, the lens is rangefinder coupled to 0.7 m but can be focused closer.

 

With the M8, the WATE offers the traditional focal lengths of 28 equiv, 24 equiv and 21 equiv. Problem with the M8 is that when you change the focal length, you need to set not only the proper field of view in the universal finder (second nature to most M users), but also (if you're using the UV/IR-Cut filter) the current focal length in the camera's menu system. Shouldn't be a problem, but it's an extra step to keep in mind.

 

With full-frame cameras, it lets you use a single lens to work at 21 mm and wider without changing anything but the finder field of view.

 

There's a little barrel distortion at 18 mm, and a bit more at 16 mm; at 21 mm there's less barrel distortion than with the 21 Elmarit Aspherical.

 

Quite compact and easy to carry. And if you decide to get it, the (recommended) Universal ('Franken-')Finder works with everything from 28 mm (full frame) on down, without needing to change finders when you switch lenses.

 

What initially interested you in it? It's a 3-for-1 bargain no matter how you look at it.

[xjr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From the engineering point of view probably the best lens ever made by Leica. From the usage point of view where else can you find not a 16-18-21 but a REAL rangefinder zoom and a superb one at that ? OK the finder only detects 16,18 and 21 but it is a real zoom ! Looking at the price now I am ever so glad I bought it with the finder when it first appear!

[Mathias]

Thank your for all the feedback so far gentlemen. They really helped me understand the WATE better (especially the part where I need to select the focal length from the M8 options).

 

 

I began to not see the appeal of the WATE when I thought that, rather than using a WATE, I can just use a super wide angle like a 15 or 16mm and crop it down as desired (hence, making the WATE quite not as useful). With the correct lens, this saves bulk and fiddling of the lens (and also with composition). In MY case I think it's more efficient to have 1 focal length > walk around > shoot > move on; rather than: 3 focal lengths > walk > shoot/fiddle, etc. Hence, my question as to whether WATE users really change their focal length numerous times in a day of shooting.

 

 

Any other forum members care to comment or give their feedbacks? I'm really interested in knowing how the WATE works for you (or for your particular style of shooting). Thanks again beforehand!

[FMB]

Mathias,

 

You actually need the three focal distances when you are working indoors. Into a house according the rooms, you use 16 mm, 18 mm or 21 mm. The frankefinder shows accurately enough the focal you must use along your indoor trip.

 

Outdoors you can compensate in many cases, not always, your wide angle needs. Photoshop (Photomerge) can bring you better panoramas using 35 mm or 50 mm.

 

M9 + Wate is a must.

 

Francisco

[michali]

As I write this I'm sitting at the airport on my way to Africa for a month long safari with clients.

 

The first lens into the camera bag to join the M9 was the WATE followed by the MATE and then the 135mm Apo-Telyt. Slightly off topic, I've also packed my 1939 Leica Standard with the C/V 25mm Color Skopar attached and my M3 as a back up, both loaded with Kodak Ektar 100.

 

In terms of some of the places I'll be visiting and the photography I plan to do, I could not wish for a better lens than the WATE. Aside from all the attributes mentioned above, and not to mention the superb quality that it delivers, the mere fact fact that it obviates the need to change lenses in dusty and harsh environments makes it ideal. And yes I do change focal lengths regularly depending on changing scenery. I find myself doing this even in the more sedate environment in rural France with both the WATE & MATE.

[michali]

BYTW I don't always use the finder, in terms of what I'm doing it makes the kit slightly cumbersome.

[khiromu]

I've got this lens with an idea of having three lenses in one package. After all, I am only shooting with either 16mm or 21mm, which often happened to me with a zoom lens on SLR. Therefore, I am looking to replace WATE with Summilux or Elmarit 21mm as I have already got Voigltnader 15mm.

 

As for the finder, I do not use supplied WATE finder. I, instead, use voigtlander zoom finder, which is smaller and works fine for my purpose.

[JMacD]

I really like the finder for interior shots at I need the bubble level . So the finder is a must.

Outdoors, I don't use the finder unless for architecture, again, the bubble level is more precise than a tripod level.

 

The lens for me was wonderful for the M8. With the M9, I'm not sure I would have bought it, rather I might have stayed with my 21mm. But I am not selling it and I do use it plenty.

Glad I got it on the 30% discount plan with the M8. There are plenty for sale used now, and I would look at that alternative to new.

[Rick]

The WATE is also a telecentric design and as such is free from the red edge problems... see how rumors start.

[glenerrolrd]

16mm rangefinder coupled Leica glass. I find the rendering exceptional. I would rather have a faster prime but the WATE is pretty impressive . I frequently use it braced against a wall inside churches for example.