carstenw Posted February 3, 2007 Share #21 Posted February 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 90mm TS-E has a decent reputation, but the 24mm is pretty soft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Hi carstenw, Take a look here WATE is a true zoom lens . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted February 3, 2007 Share #22 Posted February 3, 2007 Brad - Yes, that's one area where Canon has Nikon licked. Nikon's range of T&S lenses is pathetic - just 85mm f2.8 and an ageing 28mm f3.5 shift only which isn't made any more. I know you can fix the shift element in PS but I much prefer to get it right in the camera so I would like some T&S lenses from Nikon instead of an ever-expanding and more bewildering array of zooms. Steve - the only UF I've seen was at Photokina and that was superglued to 28mm. I expect it is compromised too - the one I saw had horrendous barrel distortion. Maybe they do that on purpose so that the distortion from the lens doesn't look so bad by comparison. Go back to Erwin's review and those houses look really odd. Still don't understand what's going to happen when the selector knob on the finder is set mid position - two frames displayed or what? It all seems rather hit and miss to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 3, 2007 Share #23 Posted February 3, 2007 Maybe they do that on purpose so that the distortion from the lens doesn't look so bad by comparison.. LOL. Go back to Erwin's review and those houses look really odd. It was the images in that review that started to kill my interest in this lens. I'm still happy to be proven wrong about it but I certainly won't buy it without having had a chance to test it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted February 4, 2007 Share #24 Posted February 4, 2007 Mark- the UF selector simply picks 35mm-equivalent frames, so there is only one per position. With an M8 you set it for the multiplied focal lentgh- e.g. set it for 28 with a 21mm lens mounted. So the 16 and 18 positions are unused, the 21-24-28 correspond to using the 16-18-21 positions on the WATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted February 4, 2007 Share #25 Posted February 4, 2007 It was the images in that review [Erwin Puts] that started to kill my interest in this lens. Ian - I too am wavering on purchasing the WATE, where previously it was to be my '30% discount', first M8 lens, and the cornerstone for reorganising my rangefinder and DSLR outfits. I think that anyone who comes from a background of making formal, wide angle, architectural photographs would react to the distortion in the Erwin Puts shots, and Brad's sunglasses shop photograph. My planned working lenses [now Leica and Nikon] in downsizing to the M8 is being re-thought because the Leica's widest M lens does not appear to render edge horizontals and verticals straight. Perhaps I have been spoilt by working with my Mamiya 7 43 mm lens, but given Leica's reputation as lens makers, and the formidable listed price of the WATE, I expected this lens to be a workhorse digital replacement for the Mamiya '43' and the Hasselblad Superwide; it appears not to be. Whilst on the subject, the Mamiya 43, and the Superwide both have good, functional viewfinders with built in spirit levels [the Mamiya has diopter correction too], their designs are both now several years old. The WATE's gothic Frankenfinder should have been an unreleasable design embarrassment had it been produced in post WW2 austerity years from salvaged scrap, releasing it in 2007 absurdly tests the wilting confidence I have in Leica's judgement of their design skills. Small format digital workers [and I include DSLR] have been calling loudly for a wide angle lens that does for digital what the superwide did for rollfilm, Leica's M8 'superwide' ought to have filled that need without recourse to post production interpolation. .........................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 4, 2007 Share #26 Posted February 4, 2007 Mark-the UF selector simply picks 35mm-equivalent frames, so there is only one per position. With an M8 you set it for the multiplied focal lentgh- e.g. set it for 28 with a 21mm lens mounted. So the 16 and 18 positions are unused, the 21-24-28 correspond to using the 16-18-21 positions on the WATE. Steve, I realise that but someone seems to be saying that you can set the lens to - say - halfway between 18 and 21 and get a half-way focal length. They're also saying you can set the finder to a half-way position and it's that I don't get... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted February 4, 2007 Share #27 Posted February 4, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mark - OK, I see what you are saying....I don't believe that you can "set" the finder to halfway position, it is constant magnification and "positions" pick a single frameline each....but then, I don't have one, so I can't be sure. I suspect that people who have the WATE didn't order the finder, and that the finder is still a bit in development...people who have seen it say it that the demo versions are locked to 28mm...I just hope that they haven't released it so that they can make it transmit the setting to the flash contacts. so that the camera can know what focal length has been chosen, so that cyan correction can be applied! (instead of redesigning the WATE with a focal length indicator) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrisc Posted February 4, 2007 Share #28 Posted February 4, 2007 Looks good to me I don't see any distortion on my screen. http://www.leica-camera-user.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24433&stc=1&d=1170628428 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/15108-wate-is-a-true-zoom-lens/?do=findComment&comment=161940'>More sharing options...
truando Posted February 4, 2007 Share #29 Posted February 4, 2007 Looks good to me I don't see any distortion on my screen. well, I see it quite clearly, after correcting the converging lines, you can see the distortion well. not good enough for my taste. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/15108-wate-is-a-true-zoom-lens/?do=findComment&comment=161952'>More sharing options...
jrisc Posted February 4, 2007 Share #30 Posted February 4, 2007 Please post something that is an example of your taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted February 4, 2007 Share #31 Posted February 4, 2007 please don't take it personally, I am not talking about the artistic qualities of the photo, I'm only talking about the lens. it has distortion, that's all I'm saying. I do like the photo. the advantage of a rangefinder prime lens is the incredible quality it can deliver, and I would never buy a zoom lens for a rangefinder camera. I can't stand barrel distortion in architecture or interior photography, and therefore will always choose a lens that is free from it. the WATE does not live up to my expectations in that respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrisc Posted February 5, 2007 Share #32 Posted February 5, 2007 I am not taking it personally as the image in question is not my photograph. The point I was trying to make is the image in question is certainly good enough to pass muster with any of my clients. Yes, I shoot images of architecture for world class architecture magazines. I just thought a fine lens was being demeaned. My private thought was "Not bad for a snapshot camera" as many of my fellow photographers see the M8 as a snapshot camera. Wouldn't be nice to shoot a ten page story for Wallpaper Magazine with a one pound camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted February 5, 2007 Share #33 Posted February 5, 2007 oops, you're melvin sokolsky, I didn't see that... sorry, I'm actually quite familiar with your work. whos isn't... anyway, that's he great thing about variety, there's a lens for evey taste and assignment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 5, 2007 Share #34 Posted February 5, 2007 Any suggestions for an ulte-wide which doesn't? I have a huge Nikon 14mm f2.8, equivalent 21mm FoV on a Nikon Digital, same as the WATE and it barrels like mad... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted February 5, 2007 Share #35 Posted February 5, 2007 the 43mm for the Mamiya 7 doesn't, it's easy to use, lightweight, and the quality is unsurpassed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 5, 2007 Share #36 Posted February 5, 2007 Any suggestions for an ulte-wide which doesn't? I have a huge Nikon 14mm f2.8, equivalent 21mm FoV on a Nikon Digital, same as the WATE and it barrels like mad... Zeiss Hologon 15/8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted February 5, 2007 Share #37 Posted February 5, 2007 or Ludwig Bertele's legendary 38mm f/4.5 biogon... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted February 13, 2007 Share #38 Posted February 13, 2007 Brad, if you said the 45 and 90 TS-E lenses from Canon are excellent, I would have agreed. The 24 TS-E is not excellent, IMHO. Soft, even unshifted, and it features barrel distortion as well. It is possibe that this was a copy problem, but I do not think so. YMMV. OT, I realise, but a few Nikon users have posted in this thread, so I thought I would mention that, currently, the el-cheapo Tokina 12-24 (used at the 20-24 end) outperforms the 24 TS-E unshifted and, at 24mm there is no distortion, of any kind. I compared the Nikon 12-24 with it, and the Tokina was noticeably better in this regard, and a third the price. Again, these days the copy variation problem has to be considered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 13, 2007 Share #39 Posted February 13, 2007 A little OT but if you are looking for a great wide shift lens look for a Olympus 24mm shift a rare lens indeed but outstanding quality. I have one that i sent in to have the mount removed and had a leica R mount put on at SK Grimes. I also tried it on the M8 with a R to M adapter and actually works quite good. Of course your guessing at everything but there is a LCD there to help. Now the WATE may distort some but that can be fixed what you can't fix is a soft lens and i would be more concerned about that right from the start than distortion . I just landed a big architecture gig and now debating a super wide Zeiss 15mm or the WATE plus the 24mm shift len to do this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 13, 2007 Share #40 Posted February 13, 2007 Now the WATE may distort some but that can be fixed what you can't fix is a soft lens and i would be more concerned about that right from the start than distortion . I just landed a big architecture gig and now debating a super wide Zeiss 15mm or the WATE plus the 24mm shift len to do this How is the Zeiss 15mm in the distortion department? That would be a key issue for a arctitectual use. If it was very low it would be worth the $4k cost. And if would fit on a 5D (with mirror lock up), that would be the frosting on the cake. The WATE distortion isn't that bad for what it is, a walk around lens I'm still waiting for a more compact walk around superwide. Something like a 18mm F2.8 would be nice Rex Hope springith eternal....ARF! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.