Another WATE vs 15CV comparison

[jonoslack]

HI There
Just a simple comparison - both lenses seemed to perform best at f8, so that's what I used, i don't have filters for either, so that was easy! I haven't corrected the vignetting on the 15cv (of course it's easy enough to do)
Both are conversions using CS3, and have been treated identically.
Shots all taken on a tripod - simply changing the lens.

Here is the house shot (and yes, the woodwork does need painting, and if I hadn't bought the wate it might be happening right now!).



Here is a crop comparison from the above shots:



Here is a similar crop of some boring bushes:



All I can draw from this is that I'm glad I'm not Sean Reid! I thought I'd post it as some might find it interesting.

Okay - what I get from it is that the WATE is not significantly sharper than the 15CV (at 16mm at least), but it suffers from less vignetting, and probably marginally better colour (at least without filters).

[punktum]

Hi Jono, great somebody is coming up with another comparison. I dit the same in another thread.

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...eats-wate.html

I can see the same thing going on here. The CV is a touch sharper and gives more detail. The difference is not as obviously as in my comparison but the tendence is there. I hope you don´t mind but I marked your Images where I see a difference.

I´d love to see a 100% crop of the grass at the ground.

all best
frank

[guy_mancuso]

Try not to go by trees they move. Go by the building or a fix object. Like to see this wide open and going down to F8

[punktum]

Jono, could you be so kind and mail me your Images. I´d really love to compare some other parts.

mail@frankpeterschroeder.de

I´ll be in Solms in early may to get my lense fixed, but why should I go there when this is the maximum quality of it, it probably won´t get better.

[innerimager]

Thanks for doing this Jono. My impression is that any color difference can be handled easily enough with WB adjust or other post moves, and that the sharpness if anything is better in the CV15, certainly not significantly worse. If this holds at 5.6, I for one, will be content with the CV15 as I can't see using this FL more open than 5.6 too often, if at all. . best....Peter

[rosuna]

At f/8 the two lenses are very similar, as is expected to be.
I would like to see how they perform at full aperture.

[jrc]

Thanks, Jono. And I also agree with Ruben. I'd like to see them both wide open; and I like the subject matter, the house, for the small contrasts in the white areas. I'm deciding right now whether to go for the WATE -- almost ordered it today -- or the CV.

My problem is that I have the discount letter, but I also have the 21 ASPH...I also have a fairly complete set of lenses, so if I don't buy the WATE, I burn the discount...wish they'd offered a discounted second body.

JC

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by punktum

Jono, could you be so kind and mail me your Images. I´d really love to compare some other parts.

mail@frankpeterschroeder.de

I´ll be in Solms in early may to get my lense fixed, but why should I go there when this is the maximum quality of it, it probably won´t get better.

Hi Frank
I've mailed you the house dng files - don't know if your email will accept it.

good luck!

[jonoslack]

Here is another crop at f5.6 (same shot as the house one above)
I don't have anything wider open (sorry)
I might do another comparison tomorrow if anyone's interested

[guy_mancuso]

The Wate looks better here and is what i expected to see the CV15mm is a F8 lens in my book and i always shot it at that F stop. Now i love the 15mm CV so don't take that as a dig because for the money everyone should have one.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

The Wate looks better here and is what i expected to see the CV15mm is a F8 lens in my book and i always shot it at that F stop. Now i love the 15mm CV so don't take that as a dig because for the money everyone should have one.

HI Guy
I think so too. I suppose that both are in some ways a compromise, but the WATE is certainly worth it's place in my bag. Generally the files seem better than the 15CV, and the extra convenience of the other focal lengths (where it performs better anyway) is great.

I was amazed to hear that you aren't using the frankenfinder though - it may be ugly, but it's such a pleasure to use.

[cyberean]

better detail/cleaner image (somewhat less-mushy)
with the WATE.
take a closer look at the window sticker.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Here is another crop at f5.6 (same shot as the house one above)
I don't have anything wider open (sorry)
I might do another comparison tomorrow if anyone's interested

[guy_mancuso]

Jono i am using the Zeiss 15mm external for the 16mm setting and 21mm setting i just use the RF and guess. It's working pretty good . I may get the frankenfinder later on, maybe a cheap one will hit e-bay

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

Jono i am using the Zeiss 15mm external for the 16mm setting and 21mm setting i just use the RF and guess. It's working pretty good . I may get the frankenfinder later on, maybe a cheap one will hit e-bay

Well, it's a pain using a viewfinder at all, but if you ARE going to use one, then it's the frankenfinder - the framelines are pretty accurate, and the spirit level is the dog's doodahs.

I only got mine because I thought it would fetch more on ebay than it cost as part of the package. Now you'll have to prize it out of my cold dead hands!

(mind you, I still think it's ugly, but beauty is as beauty does - well, to some extent anyway)

[tom0511]

Something I see in these sample images and which also seems to be the case in some images I took on my last vacation trip is that the CV15-images seem slightly colder in color than some Leica lenses (here the WATE, in my case the 21mmLeica).

When I had used the 15 and 21 at the sea forlandscapes with a 21/28mm Ricoh finder I realized how hard it is to level the M8 correctly, so this would be a real advantage of the Frankenfinder IMO.

Has anybody compared the WATE at 21mm with the 21mm_asph?

Cheers, Tom

[punktum]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hi Frank
I've mailed you the house dng files - don't know if your email will accept it.

good luck!

Hi Jono, well, big thanks for mailing me your dng files. I got them. And they are a big help to me! I developed both in Capture one pro, same settings.

Concerning the detail and the sharpness they look very much the same. The WATE is better in the corners you can see that pretty good in the grass. At some parts I feel the WATE is sharper at other parts the CV but that´s probably last nights red wine...

There is defenetly something wrong with my WATE, they´ll get it back.

Thanks again!!

all best
Frank

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by punktum

Hi Jono, well, big thanks for mailing me your dng files. I got them. And they are a big help to me! I developed both in Capture one pro, same settings.

Concerning the detail and the sharpness they look very much the same. The WATE is better in the corners you can see that pretty good in the grass. At some parts I feel the WATE is sharper at other parts the CV but that´s probably last nights red wine...

There is defenetly something wrong with my WATE, they´ll get it back.

Thanks again!!

all best
Frank

Hi Frank
My pleasure - I never mind sending these, but it's sure a pain when they get sent back 'undelivered!'.

This is at f8 of course, where the differences should be less - I took some shots at f4.5 today, but haven't done the comparison yet - I'll post them when I do.

I have to say that my feeling is the WATE image quality is generally nicer - but I agree that the sharpness at the centre is pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[jonoslack]

HI there
others asked, so I've done another test at f4.5

contrary to expectations I don't think the 15CV does badly here either. I think I'd conclude that these are both excellent lenses - the WATE providing more features rather than more quality, except that the colour and contrast of the WATE seems a little better, and the vignetting on the 15CV notably worse.

anyway, here is the shot:


here is a crop from the middle



and finally one from the edge



Enjoy!

[Joe Mondello]

Well, jono certainly your WATE is performing better than the one from the earlier comparison (I forgot whose) but for me the diff is that I can afford an M8 and a CV 15 for less than a used R-D1 and a WATE. Heck I can get a pair of CV 15s for the price of the WATE's Frankenfinder alone!

Guess which route I took?

BTW, why not repost the second house shots correcting for the color and vignetting and see how they compare when corrected.

I continue to be blown away by the sheer value of the CV lenses. No they are not Leica glass, but I can actually afford them! Heck I could actually afford to lose one or two! hehe

[macusque]

Jono, thanks for the test.

15 CV rocks!

Any difference shown here is so small that it won't show up in real usage and to be honest I somewhat prefer the slightly less contrast in the CV, at least for digital.
No need to spend a fortune on the WATE in my opinion unless you also need 21mm.
I also understand that the 15 CV shows less distortion.

The 15 CV is the only non-Leica lens I own, but it's amazing how well it fits into my setup, I'm 100% confident in using it whenever the subject demands its wide fov, something I NEVER found in a 300 € lens...