Jump to content

Wide Lens


lpeeples

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 21 lux but want a wider lens for urban landscape work. Somewhere in the 15-16 range. I am looking at the Zeiss 15 2.8 but it seems pretty big and is $4600 new. I found a used WATE for around $4200. That seems like a good price and Its smaller, which I like and gives me both the three focal lengths (mostly 16). However, the F4 has me wondering. Does anyone with a WATE find the F4 a problem or anyone with the Zeiss find the size a headache? Used with a M240.

Edited by lpeeples
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 21 lux but want a wider lens for urban landscape work. Somewhere in the 15-16 range. I am looking at the Zeiss 15 2.8 but it seems pretty big and is $4600 new. I found a used WATE for around $4200. That seems like a good price and Its smaller, which I like and gives me both the three focal lengths (mostly 16). However, the F4 has me wondering. Does anyone with a WATE find the F4 a problem or anyone with the Zeiss find the size a headache? Used with a M240.

 

I have the WATE and have never had a problem with the f4. I wouldn't be without mine. It should suit you well for Urban Landscape. If that price is with the multi viewfinder it is a damn good price. If not, the Olympus EVF will suit you fine. My personal preference is the Leica "frankenfinder".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Universal Viewfinder is not included. It still seemed like a good price though.

 

Very good price.

The EVF works great. I'm just an old timer that likes OVF. The Franenfinder is expensive at $895.00

 

Live view was a life saver for the WATE without the OVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did not know that ^. I wouldn't even consider spending 4 grand on a lens but I always thought the 16-18-21 would be a useful lens, moreso than 28-35-50 because the shorter the focal length the greater the difference between FOV. I use the CV 15 and then jump to a 21, but there are times when those intermediate FOV's would come in very handy especially in cramped quarters where foot-zooming is impractical or impossible.

 

I always thought the Frankenfinder totally ridiculous as it's something like half again the size of an M body, but with the M240 and EVF I can imagine the WATE would be an awesome travel lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sold my WATE when I had my M9 and bought it again when I got the M240. Hated the optical VFs. Love the EFV with wides. Yes it is a true zoom that clicks into each FL but all are usable. The F4 is not a problem at those focal lengths although if you want that shallow DOF at 21 only the lux will do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to own the WATE and like Jeff said it can be used as a true zoom. I've never used the 15mm distagon and I really love Zeiss lenses. The distagon however is known to heavily vignette so after using the center filter it's basically an f4 lens anyway but I'm sure it has more of the Zeiss look compared to the WATE. The f4 is no problem in most cases since the focal length is quite wide, if you're doing some serious landscape work I'd assume you'd want to use a tripod anyway. It's an extremely impressive performer across the range and some of its qualities even beats the SEM. The frankenfinder is dead accurate and its not as big as some people complain it to be. The biggest drawback if it is one is that you simply won't get shallow DOF with it and its horrible for close range portraits. Also be mindful that its impractical to use a protective filter on it and the front element happily protrudes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WATE I tried was very good, and quite beautiful to look at. My limited experience backed up what I read on the forum... f/4 is its best aperture. I sold my Zeiss 15mm about three years ago because it is very large, and I found closer focus to be dicey (now, an M20 could mitigate the latter issue.

 

Have you tested the Super-Elmar 18mm? It is a star performer in all respects and, given what it produces, very small and compact. The drawing of the SEM is exquisite, IMHO, and the edges are better than either the 15mm or 16mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 21 and 18 and can support the significant difference in viewing angle between the 21 and 18, the 18 SEM is extraordinary in terms of resolution and colour neutrality. I do wish it was a stop faster though

 

I also have the VC 15 and 12. Both okay the 12 is better than the colour shifting 15. Worth noting the perspective differences between wide and superwide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...