colorflow Posted February 7, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Â ask a poor student of photograpy if he would like to use your discount... and for this you are allowed to choose 10 prints from his latest work (with his signature) Â Yeah, there will probably be a secondary market for the 30% discount. Â Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Hi colorflow, Take a look here Decision Time for Lens #2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 7, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Â ask a poor student of photograpy if he would like to use your discount... and for this you are allowed to choose 10 prints from his latest work (with his signature) Â My plan was to help a dear friend out with mine or donate it to someone in need like a student.I would like to do something usefull with one of them. I am still on the fence with the WATE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share #23 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Guy, I expect that with all the fallout of IR filters and cyan correction, the lens will get a mechanical re-design in short order and those early adopters will be left in the lurch. I think you may be right to be sitting on that fence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 7, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Well that could certainly happen in time for sure unless there able to figure out the Cyan cast for all three settings with the existing coding, very tricky indeed from a engineering standpoint i would imagine. What i would like to have is just not built yet. The CV 15mm is a nice little lens but I would rather have a true rectilinear 15 or 16mm 2.8 lens instead of the WATE. I have a great 21mm 2.8 now so a really wide outstanding knock your socks off very wide would be very nice. This is a lens were price would have to take a back seat becuase it would be about 5k Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 7, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Mark, The "problem" of sorts is will a redesign (if any) of the WATE be done before the June 30, 2007, deadline on the discount comes up? I had to keep remininding myself that the discount applies only to the lenses listed by Leica in the letter, unless there is a change of heart on some things, like the WATE, which has design problems right out of the gate with respect to needing the UV/IR filter and still being able to accomodate a hood. Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 7, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Guy, did you ever shoot your Zeiss 21/Leica 19 wide open? I think that a 15/4 should be doable and affordable, and much smaller as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 7, 2007 Share #27 Â Posted February 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have but F4 would be fine in this area for me and yes it would be smaller and cheaper . Still like a 2.8 though but it would cost a fortune like the 15 2.8 R which really was a nice lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 7, 2007 Share #28  Posted February 7, 2007 For my money, I would hope for a 15mm f/4 Elmar ASPH around the size and shape of a 35 Cron ASPH, perhaps with a front element a little larger. It ought to be doable for around €1500. I would buy one in a heartbeat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 7, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted February 7, 2007 If they can keep the distortion very low this would make for a great interior lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 7, 2007 Share #30  Posted February 7, 2007 Yes, super-low distortion, super-low CA and flare, and we will accept f/4. Perhaps we ought to contact Leica. I think it is a super idea. Who the heck needs an f/2.8 super-wide anyway, especially at over €3000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 7, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted February 7, 2007 I will be seeing them at PMA and bring this up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 8, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Trying to understand something here folks, so please bear with me. From the last few posts, plus others before that, there is an interest in Leica producing something like a rectilinear, low distortion 15mm lens that some would be content with being an f4. Would this be rangefinder coupled? Would it matter? How much vignetting would/could you tolerate? Â My reason for asking some of these questions is because it seems like the tiny CV 15/4.5 is already there.....and for a lot less. No, it is not rangefinder coupled, but again, how much would this really matter, as you would still need to use an external viewfinder for framing? And no, it is not coded, but if we find an effective way to code that gem (via an old 9cm LTM mount or something similar), would that not be acceptable? Really not trying to rain on anybody's parade of wishes here, nor to poke a stick in our forum host company's eye, just wondering why we should be wishing for something that is almost what we now have, but from CV? I realize the CV 15 could be a bit sharper in the corners, but at f5.6, which is where most folks would probalby be shooting any lens like this anyway, it seems to hold its own, and may have less distortion than the WATE at 16mm right now. Â I would almost rather prefer that Zeiss 15/2.8 with proper coding and framelines, so if you are going to wish for something, why NOT an f2.8 that is tack sharp to the corners. Zeiss is looking to be there, just lacking the rangefinder couple, coding and framelines. Most of that could be revamped, and the you have a super lens for wide stuff. Â Just something to think about.....I still would like a 24/2 myself. Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 8, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Good point LJ i would much prefer a 2.8, coupled would be better and the quality of the CV 15mm is good but for me it would be a more knock your socks off lens that i would want. Plus coding and all that. If that Zeiss 15mm was part of the 30 percent off , i would be all over it. I had the 15mm 2.8 R lens and it was just killer. But extremely expensive, used 5k Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 8, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Guy, I agree. To me the CV 15 is superb outside, but I have not shot it very much inside to really get a feel for it that way. I too would like a "stunner", but just not sure what could be done at a "reasonable" cost/performance point. The Zeiss is looking quite nice, but has all those other downsides right now that to me do matter for what it is costing. Let's keep asking and pushing and seeding ideas. Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share #35 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Mark,The "problem" of sorts is will a redesign (if any) of the WATE be done before the June 30, 2007, deadline on the discount comes up? I had to keep remininding myself that the discount applies only to the lenses listed by Leica in the letter, unless there is a change of heart on some things, like the WATE, which has design problems right out of the gate with respect to needing the UV/IR filter and still being able to accomodate a hood. Â LJ Â The response from Leica to questions about the lens (other than from Leica UK who Just Don't Know) has been to confirm the limitations without either explanation or solution. Â It's going to be interesting to see how, if at all, Leica handle this lens in V1.10 but it seems crazy that the one lens where the coding could most help to address the issues is the one where everything falls apart. I haven't seen the cyan from the lens running at 16mm but I expect it's pretty bad. Â I don't think anything is going to change before 30 June so it will be a case of deciding whether the compromises are worth it. For me, I'm interested in working with this lens - warts and all - but I think we'll be right to be annoyed if the issues are just swept under the carpet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 8, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Mark, I understand and agree. My first thoughts about this lens, when first announced, were that this would be one I would want. I still wished it was f2.8, but figured I could live with the f4 if everything else was up to speed. Then the entire filter thing hit the fan, and seeing how the WATE was trying to handle the lens hood just made me cringe thinking about what would be required. The V1.10 firmare only adds to that concern at this point. Â Personally, this is the one thing that is bothering me most about the entire M8 thing right now. This one lens, which really looks to be quite interesting and terribly useful, especailly for the M8, has some rather nightmarish hurdles to overcome. Gone is the sleekness and innovative operation at this point, unless shooting film or B/W with it only. Â Still keeping my fingers crossed on some great solution, but that is looking to be quite a tall order right now. Â LJ Â P.S. And a way to couple the RF with the VF would be stellar, but I am really dreaming now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 8, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted February 8, 2007 I agree LJ this lens i would get with my 30 percent off , it is the filter lens hood issue that I am concerned about. Hopefully Leica is working on a solution Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted February 8, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Mark- Sounds like you've decided on a new 75 lux. I also got one used on ebay this week, mint condition, for $1984. It is just an amazing lens as you know. My personal decision, and 2 cents for you, is to go for the 90 APO with the discount.....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 8, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted February 8, 2007 Guy, To my addled way of thinking about some of this stuff, the WATE seems like it would be the perfect candiate to apply the UV/IR filter coating directly to that font lens element and get it over with. Oddly enough, that could possibly preclude the need for any cyan drift correction also, and only handle the normal vignetting problem. Not sure how it would work, but THAT would be a slick solution for that one lens. I would be on it also if that worked, but I am not a fan of a 72mm filter or something inane on the front. Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share #40 Â Posted February 8, 2007 LJ, the only solution I can see is for the camera to detect the WATE is mounted and add an entry to the SET menu to allow you to manually select the focal length for in-camera correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.