glenerrolrd Posted March 13, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) One of the advantages of the M series has always been with the superior wide angle range. With the FOV decreased by the 1.33 factor , it now takes a 15/16mm to create the 21mm FOV. I know lots has been written about the pros and cons of the above alternatives . Now that some of the WATE are in the hands of forum readers I am seeking a personal,subjective point of view. While cost clearly favors the CV15 , like most M8 users I have a lot invested and I would use this lens for probably 15-20% of my images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Hi glenerrolrd, Take a look here WATE vs CZ15 vs CV15. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
robsteve Posted March 13, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 13, 2007 The WATE is the only lens that is rangefinder coupled. Even with a 15mm, if your focus is not right, the images will be soft. This is my biggest complaint about the CV15mm. when you are up close and shooting people, the focus is too difficult to get. Depth of field does not handle it up close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlm Posted March 13, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 13, 2007 sean reid had threatened to do this very comparison... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share #4 Â Posted March 13, 2007 The WATE is the only lens that is rangefinder coupled. Even with a 15mm, if your focus is not right, the images will be soft. This is my biggest complaint about the CV15mm. when you are up close and shooting people, the focus is too difficult to get. Depth of field does not handle it up close. Rob This of course is one of the four disadvantages of the CZ15 ..the others typically quoted are size, cost and lack of 6bit coding. Normally I don t shoot people up close with a (21mmFOV) ..typically I am looking for that fish bowl look with a wide depth of field.the front to back sharpness. This is of course much harder with digital because you can more easily see even slight focus errors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share #5 Â Posted March 13, 2007 sean reid had threatened to do this very comparison... I know I have been waiting ...the reports on Luminous Landscape are excellent as well . Michael clearly went with the WATE but then struggled with the Uv/IR filter. The trade offs are well documented but you can learn from specific POV s of users . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.