Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guy_mancuso

Testing the New WATE

Recommended Posts

they could source a filter glass without having to cut it out of the ring which is what I have to do. .

 

Mark:

 

The B+W F-Pro filters have a threaded locking ring on the male thread end. You just need a rubber stopper of the proper size to unscrew it. I did this to take apart a 62mm 486 F-Pro filter and put it in an older style E60 B+W filter where the locking ring was on the front threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of people spoke with Stefan Daniels at the photo show and he "smiled" when faster, wide lenses were mentioned [my paraphrase].

 

So, I'm considering the WATE for my 30% (with the monster finder, of course). However, since I'm the loudest whiner about faster, wide lenses, CAN you get an idea if they have a 15-range, single-length lens that is faster than f4?

 

Guy, these pix are making my mouth water; where's that bib?

 

Thanks for this posting. What a gorgeous lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

The problem with a 15 2.8 is size and weight not to mention cost. Even the Zeiss 15mm at 3800 US is a bit pricey but it is also big and interfere's with the veiwing, I think that maybe a bit of a concern for leica. Andy and i did mention a 15 f4 would be nice to have, it would be small and would not cost a fortune but i did say perfectly rectilinear in design for interior shooters is what would be nice. he did like that idea and also a 24 f2 but I think things to consider are the price, size, weight and viewing abilility is what will concern Leica the most when they go to design a lens. Of course i would imagine they want it to sell too. Look at the 28 2.8 which is only 1600 US that no one can keep on the shelf for more than a couple hours. I would think that maybe they want to get more people in the Leica door than keep them out price wise too, so maybe we will see more lenses that do that with cost. My impression was they certainly are going to grow the line of lenses and some we may not want but some will be fast for the discerning buyer. You would have to think and i am guessing here leica wants to compete for more market share given that Steven Lee is there CEO and has that American CEO get me more market share style like all American CEO's. It really will be interesting to see what he does in the future with the company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every once in a while, especially when images from the WATE are posted, I think about using my 30% voucher on the WATE w/finder, which puts it at the top of my price range for a new lens. The widest lens I have now is the 24mm 2.8 and I've been strongly considering the 15mm CV, which is almost 1/10th the cost of the WATE.

 

I can't say I'd use the "tri" in the tri-elmar. A 15mm f4 would be ideal indeed. As you say, Guy, price is the determining factor there.

 

Unless these lenses are already designed, though, I doubt we'll see them any time in the near future. How long do you think it takes Leica to go from a decision to make a lens to design and to release? I'm guessing about 18-24 months, but I wouldn't know.

 

Anyone who has the WATE who's willing to let go of their 15mm CV, btw, you've got a buyer. PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I still think even though i have the WATE now the CV 15mm is a great bargain for what you get, think about it when was the last time you bought a lens for 400 dollars with adapter that actually performed good. Never in my case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Guy,

 

I was out with my freshly delivered CV15 this weekend and totally love that thing - small and cheap - and the best was prefocussing works great

 

What do you think of the WATE size? Still bearable or chunky?

 

Dirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Actually the WATE is a very nice size. I tought it would be bigger before I tried it at PMA but just a little taller than the 50 lux. I am still amazed by the size of all M lenses compared to the SLR lenses from different companies. Been a long time since i held a Canon lens but at PMA i was floored by how big they are now in my mind. This M system stuff is really spoiling me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark:

 

The B+W F-Pro filters have a threaded locking ring on the male thread end. You just need a rubber stopper of the proper size to unscrew it. I did this to take apart a 62mm 486 F-Pro filter and put it in an older style E60 B+W filter where the locking ring was on the front threads.

 

Yes, your rubber stoppers must be more grippy than mine, I cannot move them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I distroyed my flter holders with a small screwdriver i bent the thread part away from the wall and just pulled that out. Ugly but i got the glass out than threw the rest in the G basket. Not recommended by any means

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guy for the report.

 

Giving you already use the 15/4.5 CV, how does it compare with the WATE at 16mm ?

 

I guess the CV has less distortion but slightly more vignetting.

The WATE should also be sharper in the corners at wider apertures (until f/8), but I'd like to hear your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

The WATE looks very sharp corner to corner wide open maybe slightly less at F4 but 5.6 down it is even across the board the CV I never shot it at 5.6 up always down. The Wate vignets much less also. The WATE is the better lens let's not kid ourselvees to much here but for the 400 dollars the CV is damn good at F8. Honestly I think you buy the WATE more for convience and also your getting a leica super wide and this is the widest we get in Leica. Plus the wide open performance in Leica no one is going to touch . Some folks view this as a slow lens and if it was a 90 mm I would say absolutely but a wide angle can bury so much camera shake and the ability to hand hold is far greater at slow speeds, I see the F4 as not a down fall at all on this lens. i am really glad I got it and i gave up a beauty of a 21mm 2.8 too that was not easy for me to swallow. mayb e a Zeiss 21 at a far lower cost if I ever really need that extra stop but that is way down the road , i still have 2 leica vouchers to deal with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, your rubber stoppers must be more grippy than mine, I cannot move them!

 

It takes a lot of effort to budge the locking ring, but once you get it moving, it moves easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with a 15 2.8 is size and weight not to mention cost. Even the Zeiss 15mm at 3800 US is a bit pricey but it is also big and interfere's with the veiwing,
A couple of people spoke with Stefan Daniels at the photo show and he "smiled" when faster, wide lenses were mentioned [my paraphrase].

A fast wide angle is big and blocks the VF. But what if one also had a large finder external to the camera? Say, a "monster finder"?

 

Maybe planned future product is why the finder is so big?

 

(Why doesn't the forum software offer a smiley for "epiphany"?)

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, your rubber stoppers must be more grippy than mine, I cannot move them!

 

I also had this problem but found a work around. If you rapidly heat up the filter metal work from the front and then quickly twist the filter retaining ring on a rubber stopper or a piece of unglazed leather/rubber sheet on a flat surface the ring should unscrew.

 

The idea is to heat the metal quickly enough so that the outside rim of the filter is hotter than the retaining ring and there is sufficient differential expansion to loosen the ring. If you wait too long before trying to unscrew the ring the method won't work because the ring and filter mount will be at the same temperature. If it doesn't work the first time let the filter cool to room temperature and try again.

 

I heated the front of the filter mount by placing it front down on a hot stove until it was almost too hot to pick up.

 

I had several 486 filters with the IR filter on the outside and I wanted to reverse the glass so that the MRC side faced out and the IR side faced the lens.

 

Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I tried that Bob but ended up with a little puddle of molten glass. Do you think I overdid it?

 

(Just joking)

 

Current drawing of the filter holder shows it as 12.4mm long, 53.3mm outside diameter, so it will add a little over 7mm to the overall length. The filter glass sits about 1mm in front of the front lens element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I had several 486 filters with the IR filter on the outside and I wanted to reverse the glass so that the MRC side faced out and the IR side faced the lens.

Bob.

 

Bob, why? I thot the IR side was more resistant to abrasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill--

I believe according to S Reid's conversation with Schneider rep, the AR-coated (non-IR-coated) side is harder.

 

(Don't mean to butt in.)

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...