M9 and WATE compared to 18 SEM?

[gpwhite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I rented a Wide-Angle Tri Elmar to complete an interior shoot with my M9 this week, and I am impressed with the results... particularly at 16 mm (f/4 or f/5.6). Not the same as my 24 Elmar, but of course the WATE is a super wide. The Frankenfinder seems to be an apt nickname, perhaps a bit generous about its appearance , although it functioned extremely well.

 

I know from prior threads that several forum members shoot both the WATE and the 18 SEM. Can anyone comment on their preferences or comparisons between the two lenses on the M9? I have planned to purchase an 18 SEM as a super wide, hoping it will be similar in image quality and rendering of depth to my 24 Elmar, and wondered if forum member(s) recommend the WATE or the 18 SEM if you have one super wide?

 

Why did I rent the WATE instead of the 18? Because they did not have an 18 to rent, and I wanted to try that crazy, monstrous finder anyway (loved the bubble level!).

 

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

Hi Peter,

 

Can you give us an idea what you want to use the lens for? There are a lot of good choices for 18mm from the SEM to the WATE to the Zeiss Distagon ZM 18. They all have different characteristics and all are excellent.

 

Rick

[efreed2754]

Hi. Have had a 24 for over 10 years and love it. Last year got an 18 and thought about the WATE. The 18 is incredible. So sharp and great for travel.

 

Also bought finder which has 18 and 24 frame lines as 24 is 18 in M8 terms. Thus one finder works for both 18 and 24!

 

Read old posts and you will see most with WATE use 16. I thought 18 wide enough and didn't want to hunt and seek focal lengths. Yes have a MATE and appreciate it but also one may need to really concentrate to create a good image with the 18. 18 is the first lens I take for travel which is great with MATE and 90 or 75.

 

My rationale and no regrets. Lens speed and cost not big factors, but size and weight of lens/finder over WATE/frankenfinder combo helped.

 

Hope this helps

[jaapv]

The 18 SEM is an amazing lens. The image quality will rival your 24. And it is smaller than the WATE. If you are planning to use the WATE mainly @ 16, getting the SEM instead is a no-brainer.

[gpwhite]

Thank you all so much for your quick replies!

 

This is a long answer, but I want to respond to your understandable points and advice. On my M8, I loved my 21 SX because it was sharp at 1.7 ~ 2.0 and still rendered nice depth. On my M9, I was disappointed and sold it after a year or so... the true 21mm FOV also seemed in between truly wide and normal for me (I have always liked 24 on FF). With those funds and my pre-FLE 35 SX, I got a 24 Elmar and a 35 SX FLE. For me, both of these new lenses show a big step up in contrast and saturation on the M9. The 24 Elmar is the best lens I have ever used, which is hard for me to say because my 50 SX ASPH is superlative (as good at medium range as a Coastal Optics 60mm APO on a Nikon D800, from my comparison with another rental job I did).

 

I would like a super wide that matches the quality of depth, saturation and correction of the 24 Elmar as much as possible. I have a Zeiss ZF.2 25 f/2 for speed and close focus, so an 18 mm to shoot organic shapes at 1 ~ 1.5 m or interiors (maybe 2.5 ~ 3 m) with nice edges is my target on the M9. Based on my shots this week, I was quite surprised that the WATE was so good at f/4, so I thought I would ask for advice about it. The WATE was fascinating at 16mm, but distortion at the edges is a bit much (although no chromatic aberration.... amazing!). Jaap's comment suggests that I will find the 18 SEM to be quite similar to the 24 Elmar... if that is the case at f/5.6 or so, then the 18 SEM would make me very happy.

 

Rick, other than the 16 mm FOV, which is quite amazing, do you find an advantage or a point of preference for the WATE over the 18 SEM?

 

Regarding the Frankenfinder, given its level bubble and usefulness for both the 24 and 18, do you recommend it? I understand from my dealer that the M-- in September will have live view (and 24MP), but a finder is still useful for active shooting.

 

thx

[jaapv]

I cannot make any direct comparisons, as it is some years ago that I owned a 24 Elmar, so take my comment more as a feeling than as an objective comparison.

Having said that, I can see my images beside my SX 24 and before buying I compared the SEM to the Zeiss 18.

The SEM gives me more of that filigree drawing than the SX, not unlike the Elmar. In this it differs from the Summilux 24 which comes closer to the Summilux 50 asph in the pronounce DOF gradient which makes it more bold. I find myself reaching for the lens more often than I expected, which is surprising for a specialized focal length. The Zeiss is fine as well, but a bit more heavy-handed in its rendering.

Sorry for he rambling but trying to describe the look of a lens is a bit like describing the taste of wine. And as subjective. I guess I am saying that if you like the 24 Elmar you will not be disappointed by the 18 SuperElmar.

 

 

 

 

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!

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, the Zeiss has the least amount of distortion and is the easiest to correct in PP. I prefer the Leica offerings for overall color and contrast. The Zeiss is a great architecture lens because of the low distortion.

 

Both the WATE and the SEM 18 have more distortion than the Zeiss and it is of a type that is difficult to fix completely in PP because, it is of the mustache type.

 

But, if you are going to take organic pictures then you will be hard pressed to notice the distortion. At 18mm the WATE and the SEM are very close in distortion and by 21mm the WATE actually has less distortion than the SEM (at 18), quite an achievement.

 

Both lenses are very sharp wide open in the center but, the SEM is a little sharper at the edge and by 5.6-8.0 they both display about the same edge sharpness. These are both high contrast lenses centrally even wide open. I've shot both at the same time and they are hard to tell apart.

 

Size is similar, with the WATE being about a half inch longer but, smaller in diameter. To me the size is about the same.

 

The WATE focuses closer; .50m vs .70m. And, the WATE stops down to f22 vs f16. The WATE has slightly less vignetting but, both are about the same.

 

The WATE has a very good finder, as you know. I find the frame lines are very accurate and you can compensate for distance parallax. The much maligned universal finder is one of Leica's best optics. Here is what Leica says about it: "Thanks to one aspherical lens element and one with achromatic correction, the Leica Universal Wide-Angle Viewfinder M is insensitive to stray light and features high resolution and exceptional brilliance. An illuminated spirit level helps to keep the camera horizontal even in unfavorable light conditions. The eyepiece has a screw mount for optionally available diopter correction lenses."

 

Bottom line for myself, I love the pictures I get with the WATE. I consider it one of my best Leica lenses, not at all a second-rate zoom lens that must have to sacrifice image quality to cover all focal lengths. I am so impressed with the color and contrast I never see any compromise, it is right up there with the 28cron, 35lux as one of Leica's best.

 

And, you will find that you use 16 and 21 probably more than you might think. Having 16mm on the camera at the same time as 18 is not just useful to get more into the picture. I almost never use it that way. I consider 16mm a reality-distortion-effect. Having the foreground objects large and including excessive expanses of background at the same time is, for me, what I like about 16mm. Having 16mm and being able to zoom all the way to 21mm with image quality very, very close to Leica's primes is amazing.

 

You can't go wrong with either.

[thighslapper]

I have used both extensively.

 

18SEM has a more contrasty colourful image by default, but this is easily adjusted in post processing to make them identical.

 

18SEM has a bit better clarity/sharpness at the image margins, but only if you look closely.

 

As a result I sold by 18SEM for the convenience of the Tri-Elmar, which produces images that are in reality are just as good. Indoors, the flexibility of 3 wide angles is very, very useful. There is a large practical difference between these lengths even though they look close together on paper.

 

Having said that, I bought the new 21/3.4 and this kicks both the Tri and 18SEM into a cocked hat Images really are astonishingly good.

 

I tend to take the Tri if I anticipate indoor shots and the 21 for outdoor work..... and use an 18mm finder which covers all 3 focal lengths ( 21mm = M8 lines, 18mm = M9 lines, 16mm = full finder - not 100% exact but near enough)

[jaapv]

The SEM has slightly less than 2% of distortion and the WATE a bit over 3%. both good values, but the difference shows. Also, at 3.8, the edge sharpness of the SEM is considerably better than the WATE, but at 5.6 the difference, although still present, is considerably less. ( the distortion and MTF curves are on Leica’s site)

 

As Rick points out, although there is a difference in size and weight, it is not dramatic and a matter of personal taste whether it matters.

 

Objectively, from the numbers, there is not too much between the lenses, but for me the SEM it the subjective favorite. And there is a minor matter of the number of Shekels winging their way to your dealer... The WATE costs twice as much.

[Rick]

The SEM has slightly less than 2% of distortion and the WATE a bit over 3%. both good values, but the difference shows.

 

Yes, at 16mm the WATE is about 3% but at 18mm it is more like 2.4%. I think you are looking at the 16mm charts?

[k-hawinkler]

So, the WATE is twice as expensive but you get three lenses in one 16-18-21.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

 

Kidding aside.

I don't have an 18, 21, or 24 Elmar or Super-Elmar.

But I have the WATE and the Frankenfinder.

I find both items to be terrific and use them a lot.

 

For me the WATE serves double duty. On the M9 it's 16-18-21.

And on the NEX-7 it's the virtual equivalent angle of view of a FF of 24, 27, and 32 mm.

 

BTW, I have looked for but found no red edge when using the WATE on the Sony NEX-7.

[Rick]

BTW, I have looked for but found no red edge when using the WATE on the Sony NEX-7.

 

I think that might be because it is a retro-focus design. I believe the SEM 18 being a compact design gives some problems on the NEX-7.

[gpwhite]

These are all very helpful comments, thank you again. When I try to assess the range of your opinions, which are obviously based on a lot of relevant shooting, it seems the consensus is that the WATE and 18 SEM produce quite equivalent images... just why I posted my question! Echoing some of your comments, I prefer the 16mm shots with the WATE (I bracketed each scene at 16, 18 and 21... no large exposure variation, which is surprising and a complement to Leica's skill).

 

The clincher for me is Jaap's comment that he reaches for the 18 SEM much more often than he would expect. My impression is this has to do with how it draws the scene, beyond just FOV. This is the reaction I have about my 24 Elmar... I love the smooth, snappy and fine detail everywhere you look in the image. Its images just seem to jump out. I finally figured out how to down-res my print files and post a couple of examples. These are f/5.6 for DOF, whereas the f/4 are even crisper, just as Leica's MTF charts suggest.

 

Rick, I also like to shoot these wide-angle lenses at minimum focus distance, open aperture, which is the composition I thought showed results a bit weaker from the WATE than I hoped for. The 24 Elmar does quite well in that regard, so the 18 SEM might handle this better than the WATE?

 

Thanks again, everyone.

[helged]

Hi folks,

the Leica 21/3.4 lens has become a favorite of mine - I love its colors, sharpness and micro contrast (plus ok weight and size). Sometimes it would be good to go wider. WATE is an alternative, but its rather expensive, particularly for those of us that have and love a 21 mm. Zeiss 15/2.8 is an alternative, but it's rather large, heavy and expensive (Zeiss-wise). So what if .... a new Leica 15 mm (or thereabout) prime was put forward? Any views and/or hopes?

 

(yes - we also have the Voigtlander 12 and 15mm, with a good performance/prize ratio, but not in the Leica optical quality league).

 

Best,

Helge