Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted February 11, 2007 Share #1 Posted February 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Information on WATE. My WATE arrived last week. I tried it out at my Leica dealer ( they had asked me to bring the WATE along as they had not handled one) and I took some snaps in the shop at about 3m distance. They turned out OK. When I returned home, I wanted to compare the WATE to my 15mm Hologon with and without the graduated grey filter. Imagine my surprise when I found that I could not mount the WATE on the M8 when the distance was set at infinity! The lens mounted without trouble when set at between 3 and 5 meters, but I could not focus to infinity. In order to check, whether the camera was at fault, I tried the WATE on my M7 - with the same negative result. Leica CS could not explain the phenomenon and after consultation with the techies, I was requested to send the lens back to Solms, which I prompotly did. I will post again when I have the lens back with an explanation (I hope). Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Hi Theodor Heinrichsohn, Take a look here Problem with WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #2 Posted February 11, 2007 Teddy was kind enough to email me with this problem this morning and I've been looking at what might be causing it. My WATE, mounted on one of my M8s (the other being lost somewhere between Solms and here) mounts OK, but closer inspection suggests mine is right on the edge as well. Here's what I think it happening. Here's the back of a Nocti. The rangefinder roller engages with the brass cam for focus tracking and the gap between the bayonet ring and the cam is a fraction over 1mm. 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! Now look at the back of the WATE. No brass cam, instead a disc which rotates with the focussing ring and moves in and out. The gap between the bayonet ring and the disk is more, about 3mm. I believe in Teddy's case that the roller is slipping into the larger gap in the WATE instead of pressing against the disk. The lens will not mount properly and you will not be able to focus. Worse, there's a risk of damage to the roller and the disc. I then took a look at my WATE and can see wear right on the edge of the disk which suggests my camera is working properly, but only just. All depends on the vertical position of the roller in the camera which determines whether it makes contact with the disc or slips into the gap. You can see from this picture there is some brightening already (3 days) on the edge of the disk which suggests the roller is only contacting the disk right at the edge. The wear is also visible in the bottom right of the second picture. The solution seems to be to fit a larger diameter disk to ensure the roller makes contact with it. I feel a WATE recall coming on... Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Now look at the back of the WATE. No brass cam, instead a disc which rotates with the focussing ring and moves in and out. The gap between the bayonet ring and the disk is more, about 3mm. I believe in Teddy's case that the roller is slipping into the larger gap in the WATE instead of pressing against the disk. The lens will not mount properly and you will not be able to focus. Worse, there's a risk of damage to the roller and the disc. I then took a look at my WATE and can see wear right on the edge of the disk which suggests my camera is working properly, but only just. All depends on the vertical position of the roller in the camera which determines whether it makes contact with the disc or slips into the gap. You can see from this picture there is some brightening already (3 days) on the edge of the disk which suggests the roller is only contacting the disk right at the edge. The wear is also visible in the bottom right of the second picture. The solution seems to be to fit a larger diameter disk to ensure the roller makes contact with it. I feel a WATE recall coming on... ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/15930-problem-with-wate/?do=findComment&comment=168270'>More sharing options...
leicaM8freak Posted February 11, 2007 Share #3 Posted February 11, 2007 quote: " I feel a WATE recall coming up" Right, now my mind is made up. There were 2 possible lenses for me in the wides. It is not going to be the WATE, I go for the Distagon 2.8/15 Thanks for sharing the experience and info Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #4 Posted February 11, 2007 The Distagon neatly gets around this problem by not being rangefinder coupled! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaM8freak Posted February 11, 2007 Share #5 Posted February 11, 2007 The Distagon neatly gets around this problem by not being rangefinder coupled! Mark, you are absolutely right! Just depends on the use one wants to get out of a lens. Other then the problems with the WATE (which seem to be as many as with the intitial M8) I feel the difference in focal lenghts is to small to be of good use to me, and rather go for the faster and better quality of the Distagon..(at least I can use it) And since I have been through the works (up and down to Solms) with my M8 already and am still waiting on my 90 cron to be returned from its coding job (over 9 ! weeks now) I do not want to go through all of that hassle again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twom4 Posted February 11, 2007 Share #6 Posted February 11, 2007 "I feel a WATE recall coming on..." Don't worry, modern Leica AG is experienced at recall. Remember M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #7 Posted February 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Been looking closely at my other lenses and the gap varies from 1 - 3 mm with the WATE right at the top of the range so if it is the gap which is causing a problem, it's down to 1/10s of a mm. What I can also see is black paint on the bottom edge of the roller which corresponds to the wear I see on the WATE. It's possible that free play in the roller and the angle the lens is mounted at can cause the roller to miss the disk. For now, I'm presetting the lens to minimum focus (0.5m, at which point it is not rangefinder coupled) before mounting the lens. As you increase the focus distance, the disk should then engage with the roller and all should be well. Looking what happens when the lens is close focussed beyond 0.7m, you can see what the disk was not made larger than it is. It sinks into a hole whose diameter is limited by the need to have fixing screws around the rim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted February 11, 2007 Share #8 Posted February 11, 2007 The Voigtlander Heliar 15 seems to be the best deal on the market :-) Giulio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 11, 2007 Share #9 Posted February 11, 2007 The Voigtlander Heliar 15 seems to be the best deal on the market :-) Giulio Yes, except for many of the other Voigtlander lenses which perform even better than the 15 Heliar. The 15 is very popular right now but its the tip of the iceberg when one looks at these lenses as a range. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osera Posted February 11, 2007 Share #10 Posted February 11, 2007 Mark- I was just looking in the back of my lens, I see what you mean with the WATE. A couple of questions. Do you know if the old TE uses a similar focusing linkage? I've never used the older one. The contact "ring" with the focusing cam is painted black on the WATE, but I wonder if the underlying metal is brass. If it were unpainted brass, the rub marks from the focusing cam would be less visible. Is what you're seeing, do you think, the result of normal contact, made more apparent by the presence of the paint? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #11 Posted February 11, 2007 Another picture. You can see the paint on the side of the disk has scrapped against the rangefinder roller when the two have not properly engaged and this transferred paint to the bottom circular edge of the roller. 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/15930-problem-with-wate/?do=findComment&comment=168438'>More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 11, 2007 Share #12 Posted February 11, 2007 The Voigtlander Heliar 15 seems to be the best deal on the market :-) Giulio Sure does. It even works under bad light, and rapid shooting conditions -- These were taken at f/5.6 and whatever, using ISO 640. I use the Voigtlaender 20 mm brightline finder to aim and frame. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #13 Posted February 11, 2007 Mark- I was just looking in the back of my lens, I see what you mean with the WATE. A couple of questions. Do you know if the old TE uses a similar focusing linkage? I've never used the older one. The contact "ring" with the focusing cam is painted black on the WATE, but I wonder if the underlying metal is brass. If it were unpainted brass, the rub marks from the focusing cam would be less visible. Is what you're seeing, do you think, the result of normal contact, made more apparent by the presence of the paint? The older TE uses a normal brass cam but the gap is right up there with the WATE because there needs to be space for a spring. I've never had trouble with this lens on the M8 though. I'd certainly expect to see some wear on the surface of the painted disk where the roller makes contact but not on the side edge of it as my last picture shows and I certainly wouldn't expect to find paint transferred to the roller's bottom edge. It a mystery; I'm wondering if there is some focussing position where things go wrong when the lens is mounted which is why I'm setting the lens to minimum focussing distance (0.5m) which means the roller does not engage with the cam until after the lens is mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englander Posted February 11, 2007 Share #14 Posted February 11, 2007 There does seem to be a lot more variation in the M8 and the WATE than we all expected. I am getting marks from the bottom of the cam-roller, but they are on the barrel of the WATE that is within the blackened focusing cam. My WATE appears to engage and focus properly, but after looking at Mark's pictures, I reexamined my lens and was surpised to see evidence of the cam-roller touching the lens barrel! Joe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 11, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 11, 2007 I've been peering through the open shutter of my M6 with a few lenses and the roller in that camera is ideally placed to handle the different range of cam positions and the WATE is handled perfectly on that camera and on that basis at least, the lens is OK. It will be interesting to see what the report back on Teddy's lens says but it's still a mystery what is causing the paint on mine to be scraped off when mounted on an M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted March 5, 2007 Here is the report on what happened in Solms with my WATE. Sent to Solms Feb 13th, arrived 14th, checked up and repaired. Finished on 5th Match and picked up in Solms by me today at the factory. Work done: Entry check up Adjust range finder curve Repair focus Final total adjustment Charge: none Mark Norton in his first analysis on this thread was perfectly correct. As far as I could understand the technical explanation, it was a misplaced disc - the one that engages the range finder's roller - that caused the trouble. The lens now fits perfectly and works as specified. During my visit I consulted the information service as well about some questions I had on lens compatibility with old lenses and the M8. I had looked carefully at the 15 mm Hologon f8, the first version of the 28mm 2.8 Elmarit, the 21mm 3.4 Super Angulon and the 50mm diual range Summicron f 2. The Hologon and the Summcron dual range are listed as "not usable" and the Super Angulon and the Elmarit are listed as "usable but the light meter does not work". The backs of the Super Angulon and the Elmarit protrude as much, or even a little more than the back of the Hologon and the diameter of the former two's protruding tube is greater. It therefore seemed illogical to me. As it turns out, the Hologon does fit. The light meter does not function. The Summicron should fit as well, however, the close focus part might not work. Please try this out for yourself. The new 50mm 2.8 collapsible Elmarit is not mentioned at all. The back does not protrude into the M8 as far as the old 28 Elmarit or the 3.4 Super Angulon, and should be perfectly usbale. I suggested that Leica publish a correction of their users' manual atthe next printing. In spite of my disappointment at the delay I want to report that all persons I spoke to at Leica were very helpful and did everything they personally could to help me get the information I wanted. When I left the plant on my way to the parking lot, an employee whom I had not met asked me, whether I could use a lift into town. I thanked her for her kindness and said my car was parked around the corner. It turned out that she used to live a couolple of hundred of yards of where I lived about 40 years ago ( at a later date than I did). I hope that this information helps to allay the fear of a general recall of the WATE. It was a mistake in the quality control. The question of, whether the black paint will rub off onto the roller could not be cleared up. I voiced the suspicion/fear that specks of paint might fall onto the sensor. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 5, 2007 Share #17 Posted July 5, 2007 Here is the report on what happened in Solms with my WATE. The new 50mm 2.8 collapsible Elmarit is not mentioned at all. The back does not protrude into the M8 as far as the old 28 Elmarit or the 3.4 Super Angulon, and should be perfectly usbale. I suggested that Leica publish a correction of their users' manual atthe next printing. Teddy, I can tell you both Jaap and I have been using and fully collapsing the current Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8 into the body of the M8 for a couple of months now with zero problems. The back of the lens never gets nearer than just over 2mm from the shutter. Mine was made as a coded lens, therefore it was reasonable to assume it was meant for the M8. There was nothing in the supplied instructions which implied I had to restrict the collapse with tape or rubber bands, as some have suggested. It is a great little lens, not to be confused with its somewhat average predecessors. Its colour rendition and contrast are a little more gentle than my Biogons, which can sometimes be easier on the eye. I agree that the whole lens situation is a bit confusing and a really definitive guide/chart should be issued. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.