WATE or S-Elmar 18/3.8 for 40x60" prints

[Manolo Laguillo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear collective wisdom,

I have this assignment of making skyline photos in daylight of some cities here in Spain. They will be printed at 40x60inches. The detail has to be rendered in the best possible way. I've done some tests of the M8 with a Elmarit-M 28/2.8, and the results are beautiful! I am pleased with the amount of detailI the M8 delivers when big prints are needed. OK, a bigger format would give more, but the cost would be impossible to assume... OK, OK, I could do it with my ARCA and 6x12cm roll film, but I'm happy with digital, and don't want to go the silver path...

I will need at least a 21mm on the M8 (equals the angle of the 28mm with full frame), better yet the 18mm (=24mm).

The question is this: what will give the best results, the S-Elmar 18/3.8, or the WATE?

I can have a new S-Elmar 18mm for 2300 euros (excluding the cost of the viewfinder), and a 2nd hand WATE in perfect shape for 3300 euros (viewfinder included).

Thank you in advance for your opinions and views!

Manolo Laguillo

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[D&A]

Hi Manolo,

 

I have personally made two seperate tests...and by inference, once can deduce some conclusions:

 

1. I tested the WATE against the Zeiss 18mm f4 lens. It was extremely close and felt the Zeiss had the slightest edge in terms of resoltion...most notably in the corners. Again this was very slight...and might be influenced simply by slight differences between samples.

 

2. On another occasion, I tested the leica 18mm f3.8 lens vs. the Zeiss 18mm f4. Again it was ever so close (but with slightly different characteristics)....with the Zeiss having a bit more 'pop" and general overall contrast...but sharpness across the frame was almost identical.

 

Based on what I observed in both tests above...even in large format prints (which I have done too)...there is going to be little difference between all three lenses. The Zeiss and Leica 18mm lenses in a couple of images seemed to be a bit more resistant to flair than the WATE...if that is something you feel might come into play in the types of images you plan to take. I did not test or compare lenses for linear distortion....and this may be an important factor for you to consider!

 

I'm sure many others have had more extensive experiences with some or all of the above lenses and Sean Reid (ReidReviews) as always, has some of the best and more comprehensive lens reviews and I personally would definitely read them...worth every penny in my opinion (subscription site).

 

I ended up purchasing the Zeiss 18mm..as it takes standard 58mm filters and for the occasional IR use with a R72 IR filter, it just made things easier...that and at its price point, was a superb buy...with almost nothing to lose against the others (when WATE was used at 18mm). To code the Zeiss, all that was required was a single black line for coding it as a WATE 18mm (and to make sure the Zeiss had the correct mount to bring up the proper framelines for coding). Once the coding was picked up by the M8 when the camera was tuned on...it instantly came up with 18mm on the rear LCD screen and all one had to do is lightly press the shutter button 1/2 way and it was all set to go.

 

Optically you can't go wrong with any of the three lenses when all three are compared against one another. Whether you feel the M8 and 18mm focal length captures sufficient detail for your intended purposes and the kinds of images and prints you mentioned...thats of course a seperate issue, which my comments here don't reflect on. Hope this info helps a bit.

 

Dave (D&A)

[pgk]

Depending on exactly what you are photographing it might be possible to shoot and stitch several images together - I've done this with success and it may well allow you to use existing lenses?

[wstotler]

Depending on exactly what you are photographing it might be possible to shoot and stitch several images together - I've done this with success and it may well allow you to use existing lenses?

 

+1. I've shot several cityscapes/skylines with the Super Elmar 18mm at f/8 to get wide, high-detail shots, with full intention to stitch, and found it works well. I'm with D&A that the other lenses can probably do a similar job--especially if you're going to stitch shots (more below).

 

These shots are good for decent 20x30 prints, with some loss of detail. (E.g., not razor sharp when viewed very closely--due to upsampling.)

 

With the 18mm on the M8 I can get really wide coverage with only two shots and a 1/2 or 1/3 overlap stitch. (And the SE18's edge-to-edge performance is great. I've tried using the CV15 for the same kind of work and the edges were too soft to do good stitching.) I use AutoDesk's StitcherUnlimited for wide-wide-wide panoramic work and it does a great job at the stitch, blend, and distortion removal.

 

A bit of cyan coloration and vignetting in the sky at the point of overlap (photo edges) can be seen in the original shots--once properly stitched and then treated, this vanishes.

 

Before I had the SE 18mm, I'd do panoramic/skyline work with the 35mm Summicron ASPH, shoot quite a bit of overlapping footage on tripod with QTVR head, and then stitch in post.

 

Details on the rig here (there are other products but I use this one):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303602-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_303SPHUK_303SPHUK_QTVR_Spherical_Upgrade.html

 

It's more suited to taking the shots you need for full 360-degree spherical panoramas (for the Web) than panoramas, but the gear works the same--you just do a 180-degree or 120-degree segment instead of 360-degrees.

 

Way cheaper than a wide for this kind of work--and you could use your existing 28mm lens.

 

If you want to be very detailed, you can actually use a 50mm lens on the M8 with this rig, shoot many, many shots, and then stitch them all together in post (provided you calibrate the rig) to get way-huge resolution images that would print (I bet) almost one-for-one without upsampling pixels for the 40x60 size! (The person that suggests doing this work with a 90mm will be shot, BTW.)

 

Something to think about.

 

Later!

Will

[Fotomiguel]

I have the 18mm and I know very well the WATE. Both are excellent lenses. I would say incredible. The 18mm is a bit smaller, faster and not so expensive. This one was my choice and I'm really happy. But the WATE is really good and the viewfinder is very nice. I love the spirit level inside the viewfinder. It works superb.

Un saludo

Miguel.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Thank you very much, D&A, pgk, wstotler and Fotomiguel, for sharing your experience with the different lenses, and for your nice ideas regarding stitching!

The (nearly) new WATE will be my choice: 3 lenses in one at (only...) 1000 euros more than the 18mm. As a 21mm (=28mm) it would work nicely for stitching. The viewfinder is beautiful, and I love the bubble, which works flawlessly (I checked it) in the case of the particular one I will buy. It reminds me of a Wide Angle roll film Plaubel I used years ago. It was a VF camera with shifting of both the lens and the VF!

Besides, the WATE will find many other uses, of course...

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The person that suggests doing this work with a 90mm will be shot, BTW.

Actually, on this note, having looked at the distortion characteristics of Leica M lenses, the 3 with least distortion are the 35 Summicron asph, the 50 Summilux asph and the 50/2.8 Elmar (recent version) so I'd actually say that these are probably the best stitching lenses - the 35 Summicron asph according to its specs would produce virtually no distortion on an M8.

[Nicoleica]

Actually, on this note, having looked at the distortion characteristics of Leica M lenses, the 3 with least distortion are the 35 Summicron asph, the 50 Summilux asph and the 50/2.8 Elmar (recent version) so I'd actually say that these are probably the best stitching lenses - the 35 Summicron asph according to its specs would produce virtually no distortion on an M8.

 

I quite often stitch photographs taken with my Summarit 35. It seems to work pretty well.

[Manolo Laguillo]

hi,

this is a question for you, wstotler. I was wondering: how do you determine with the equipment you mention and a RF camera the nodal point? I could have access to a gear for doing panoramas (something like "xyz ninja", can't remember the name, sorry, but it's more or less the same as the Manfrotto unit), which can easily be adjusted via trial and error with a SLR. I know, when working at infinity it is not important to make the panorama arounf the nodal point, but what when making interiors?

BTW, I would do the stitching with the camera in portrait mode (vertically): more frames, but also more from earth to sky.

[wstotler]

hi,

this is a question for you, wstotler. I was wondering: how do you determine with the equipment you mention and a RF camera the nodal point? I could have access to a gear for doing panoramas (something like "xyz ninja", can't remember the name, sorry, but it's more or less the same as the Manfrotto unit), which can easily be adjusted via trial and error with a SLR. I know, when working at infinity it is not important to make the panorama arounf the nodal point, but what when making interiors?

BTW, I would do the stitching with the camera in portrait mode (vertically): more frames, but also more from earth to sky.

 

With the SLR it's a snap--twist the rig down toward the tripod pin, shoot photos, adjust left/right to get two of the axises in line. Then, shoot a laser through the lens and make forward/back adjustments so that the dot shooting out of the viewfinder onto a wall can be seen at all times.

 

With the M8 it sucked. I had to do a lot of trial-and-error test shooting to figure out the "sweet spot" of the nodal point for each of my lenses on the M8 (at f/11) and also at a focus of . The toughest was the front-to-back alignment--side-to-side wasn't too bad. I marked up *everything* carefully with an engraver so I could assemble the rig very precisely later.

 

If I was completely hard-core, I'd pick my lens of choice (prob the 35--just for resolution vs. number of shots), buy a spare M8 baseplate, calibrate everything *exactly*, remove the M8 from the baseplate (leaving the baseplate affixed to the rig) and take the whole damn thing down to somebody who could spot weld the baseplate to the rig's arm--and add beads of spot-weld every place an adjustment could be made. Perfectly calibrated rig, every time! Then, you could just throw the M8+35 up on the welded baseplate, lock it, and shoot. (I don't know of any other modern camera you could do this with, BTW--this is the one case that the baseplate-design of the M8 would be a godsend.)

 

I know, when working at infinity it is not important to make the panorama arounf the nodal point, but what when making interiors?

 

BTW, this is untrue. Finding the nodal point "sweet spot" is critical whether you are shooting indoors or outdoors, at a closer range, or infinity. While many diagrams show the nodal point as being in a fixed position within the camera/lens, this is in practice untrue. . . . In practice, where the nodal point is located shifts slightly forward and back based on aperture and focus setting (because lens elements are shifting). I've never seen this documented, per se, but I've found it to be true in practice. (E.g., perfect alignment can be thrown off by an aperture or focus change. Nuts. But I've seen it happen. Set it on infinity. Set it on f/11. Keep it there.) If you don't have the nodal point adjusted for lens/camera/aperture/focus, outdoors shots may stitch OK--interiors (because of straight lines, and being closer to the camera) will display errors *very* quickly because items in the spaces tend to be closer to you and geometrically perfect. E.g., adjust your nodal point to work in a 12x12 room with furniture. If you can stitch that room, you were very precise about finding your nodal point. Outdoors will be a snap. If your nodal point works "at infinity," outdoors, but then won't work in a tight room, it's likely you are *close* to finding the nodal point but not precise enough.

 

Cheers,

Will

[pgk]

Manolo

 

Leica publish lens pdf data on their website which includes the position of each of the entrance pupil of each lens. This is the point about which you need to rotate the lens/camera at infinity and will be a good basis around which to start.

[Manolo Laguillo]

I got the WATE + dedicated viewfinder: a little bit disappointed with the VF! Compared with the 24 mm VF from the D-Lux 4, the Univ. VF is less precise: the small one from the D-Lux 4 is quite better. Could it be that the framelines from the Univ. VF are out of adjustment? Are they adjustable in the factory? I'm considering changing the WATE for the 18mm, after seeing that the 24mm D-Lux 4 VF works very well with the 18 mm lens.

What do you think?

Thanks a lot!!!

[howard_cummer]

About finding the nodal point for a single focal length Leica M lens - rack the pano head back until the aperture ring is directly over the pivot point. 9 times out of 10 that will be your nodal point. Of, course with the WATE and the Tri Elmar that will only be a good starting point because of the different focal lengths available but even for those lenses it is a good starting point.

[ChrisC]

... how do you determine with the equipment you mention and a RF camera the nodal point? ....

 

Manolo - Allow me. It's really easy with the M8. If you go to post No. 8, I described the set-up here :

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/31495-two-mysterious-measurements.html

 

 

............... Chris

[Manolo Laguillo]

Thank you, Chris and everybody!

What a nice forum!

You are very generous sharing your experience and knowledge!

Saludos from Barcelona,

Manolo

[Manolo Laguillo]

I did it! How easy it is! I tried the Nodal Ninja Rig with my 28/2.8 Elmarit, starting with your recommendations (assuming the nodal point coincides with the diaphragm), and everything went fine with the very first position: no need to change it slipping back and forth! I must say that I'm using the model in which the camera is vertical (portrait format). I must do more photos, but I do have a bigger covering angle vertically.

Again, thank you very much!