WATE / 486 issues

[dannirr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I finally got my 486 IR filter for my WATE. It works well but for 2 problems:

 

1.) No way to use the lend hood - wil lhave to go to a generic 67 mm hood and cutout windows myself - not a big deal

 

2.) The vents in the 67 mm filer adaptor that has to be used leads to an unprotected filter at all times, as well as a portal for dust and dirt to get between the filter and front element. See picture. Might need to go to a drawstring bag when not being used.

 

Danni

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!

[LJL]

Dan,

Thanks for posting this shot. Gives a good idea of what this arragement is like. The filter holder design and implelmentation do look sleek, but your observations about greater exposure of the filter, on both sides now no less, are important. By not being able to use any present hood design with this filter, it does not really help there.

 

Not knocking your rig. I think it looks good, but I agree with your conclusions that this is not the optimal solution.

 

LJ

[ChrisC]

It works well but........

1.) No way to use the lend hood .......2.)..... a portal for dust and dirt to get between the filter and front element.........[Danni/QUOTE]

 

Dan - If only this was an April fools posting, or the lens was a cheap Sigma offering for the M mount. How we would laugh.

 

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

[carstenw]

Do you feel like showing the setup from the front? I just heard somewhere that this lens is only a little larger than a 50 Lux Asph, so now I am really curious.

[marknorton]

Sleek? It looks ridiculous, those holes are to reduce the blocking of the view through the aux finder and an add-on hood is going to make things worse. Plus of course, it obscures the image through the main viewfinder for focussing and metering. You make a good point that even with a 67mm lens cap, dust is going to get inside - yet another disadvantage.

 

Leica need to recognise that with the IR issue, this lens is going to be used with a filter much more of the time than originally envisaged/envisioned and the current "solution" is anything but.

 

As the risk of sarcastic remarks from Rex (yes, it will vignette on film), here's a sketch of a filter which screws onto the front of the lens and the standard hood screws on to it. This (IMHO) is what Leica should be doing.

 

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!

[LJL]

Mark,

I take it your "Sleek? It looks ridiculous...." comment shoots at me a bit. No prooblem. I still think that the proposed solution does look "sleek" with respect to being trim, fitting in with typical Leica design and build. However, I do NOT think it is a very practical solution. Those are different things in my book.

 

The solution you have proposed does have a lot of merit, and would make the entire WATE operation more practical, as long as there was not additional vignetting from the small extension you propose. This would be a rather special order filter mounting for sure, but I agree that it probably would be better and far more attractive. Know anybody willing to try tooling one for you? The only other caveat would be how to attach the front filter glass to your ring, but somebody should be able to work that out.

 

Still hate to say it, but regardless of how much I think the WATE could be a great tool in the kit, the filter issue is keeping me from pursuing it right now, as the Leica option just does not cut it fro me. Others may feel quite differently, and I wish them the best with its use.

 

LJ

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That special attachment looks like a normal filter on backwards, but with the glass further away. Given that the WATE has to work on FF, I wonder if a normal filter with the glass removed, plus another normal filter on backwards would work? Is the thread on the WATE the same as the thread on a filter of the same size?

[LJL]

Carsten,

From the other pix I have seen, the threads are not the same on the outer rim of the WATE compared to the inner filter threads of most lenses. Looks like the pitch is different.

 

That being said, the WATE realy does not need any UV/IR cut filter for use with film, only with the M8, so Lecia could make a more properly designed filter/hood system for those needing it on the M8. (I realize that folks with film Ms might still want to use some kind of filter possibly, and they they too are faced with the present solution that precludes using a hood. Just not good, Leica......sorry.)

 

LJ

[marknorton]

LJ, wasn't getting at you, apologies if you thought so. I just think Leica's filter solution was based on the assumption of occasional filter use - thereby allowing an element of operational inconvenience. As it's turned out, the IR filter is required and for many users will be there all the time.

 

Added to that, as it turns out, the thread is quite tight and removing the hood and replacing it with the filter holder is not a quick operation, especially with that vulnerable front element. The hood itself provides little protection to it because it cannot vignette when the lens is used at 16mm on film.

 

I agree with you, my sketch doesn't show how the glass will stay put - I gave up thinking at that point.

 

Carsten, the male thread on the front of the lens is different from a normal filter thread - it has a stop to make sure the hood is on square and the filter ring ends up in the correct position with the cut outs aligned. It was said this thread was patented...

[LJL]

Mark,

Thanks for your comments, but rest assured, I really was NOT offended by your response at all. This entire WATE thing is a bit disconcerting for me right now. I like the idea of the lens. I like the range of the lens. I would still like an f2.8, but can live with the f4 aperture. The proposed filter solution does not cut it, as you clearly point out. Needing to leave the filter on for use with the M8 requires something less open, less dust prone, more compact, able to use a lens hood, etc.

 

I still think something like what you proposed could be made by Leica, using their "patented" thread design, but somebody needs to have a light bulb go on someplace, it seems. These guys are great mechanical engineers.....this should not be an implausible solution for them to build that also confirms to real world needs and use. Just my opinion.

 

LJ

[ChrisC]

Mark,....... This would be a rather special order filter mounting for sure,........... Know anybody willing to try tooling one for you? ......LJ

 

LJ - With all due respect; do you seriously think that Mark [who offered his design solution several weeks ago], or anyone else should be entertaining thoughts of rescuing a Leica bodged design by going to a tool shop with his own design for the essential filter and hood fitting? Mark and I are in the UK and the full price of the WATE and it's finder is over £2200, a staggering price to ask for a lens with serious operating issues, and a finder that should make any first year design student fall about laughing if it were presented as a contemporary design from a leading high-tech company.

 

I want the WATE to work, but I'm damned if I'll let Leica try and pull wool over my eyes at Leica prices. Leica; please tell us you are sorting these design issues out, and then sort them out .

 

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

[wparsonsgisnet]

This litenany of shortcomings -- with regard to use on the M8 -- recalls the early discussions about the M8 when very few people had the camera.

 

Therefore, if things progress the same way and all the kinks get ironed out, I'll have to have this lens!

[LJL]

Chris,

Not disagreeing with you at all. My feelings are much the same as yours....for the cost, the darn thing should address these issues correctly, and it does not.

 

My suggestion about getting something tooled was partly flippant, and partly sincere in just trying to come up with a viable solution to be able to use this lens, as obviously, Leica is not making the grade there. Personally, right now I am having a hard time thinking about ordering this lens, even though I know I could put it to good use. My hesitiation is based squarely on the awful kludge of a design for handling the filter, which is now a necessity for the M8. I am approaching this from a "get the problem solved" perspective, and sometimes that means going to others for better solutions than are being offered by Leica.

 

LJ

[marknorton]

I think it is a great lens but there are the two issues of the coding and the filter to work through. Once V1.10 is out and the filters are available, we'll be in a better position to come to a workable solution. I do think Leica should be doing this themselves and telling us about it though.

[LJL]

This litenany of shortcomings -- with regard to use on the M8 -- recalls the early discussions about the M8 when very few people had the camera.

 

Therefore, if things progress the same way and all the kinks get ironed out, I'll have to have this lens!

 

Bill,

Hope you are right about the kinks, but I am not sure I share your confidence in this right now. The one fielded solution Dan posted....well, frankly, it just is not cutting it. The issue with the v1.10 may get sorted, and I do have my hopes up there. So, not convinced the kinks are the same as the M8, and there is probably a lot less urgency (somewhat specialized lens versus first attempt at a digital RF that you are betting the company on to some degree....).

 

As I have stated several times, I really would like this problem to be solved quickly by Leica, as the WATE could be a great tool in the kit. But now how it stands today, and with no real view into the future, my confidence in a proper solution remains a bit low.

 

LJ

[dannirr]

I am in an airport right now and only have one digital body with me - so I cannot post a picture of the setup from the front, but will when I can.

 

SInce I posted the original picture, I have had some time to think (waiting at airport gates does that to you).

 

The problems I raised in the first post are real. No doubt - however, the advantages this lens offers me (my kind of photography) far outweigh these disadvantages. I can make a partial lens hood, or I can leave it off entirely - sure some shots will suffer, but most will not.

 

Some express the opinion, roughly summarised, that for this price and from this company, we should not have these issues and they should resolve them. That's true - but this is what we have now - and we can either use it as is, or choose not to. I would rather use it as is and get my shots with one lens. Each to his own choice.

 

Having used this lens a lot now (without the 486) - I really believe it is a terrific lens and well priced within the Leica line-up.

 

Danni