robsteve Posted March 18, 2007 Share #101 Posted March 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 Hi robsteve, Take a look here Testing the New WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 18, 2007 Share #102 Posted March 18, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 18, 2007 Share #103 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nryn Posted March 18, 2007 Share #104 Posted March 18, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 18, 2007 Share #105 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venkman Posted March 18, 2007 Share #106 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartmonstr Posted March 18, 2007 Share #107 Posted March 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do you think of the WATE size? Still bearable or chunky? Dirk Dirk, Here's a visual comparison: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/19227-no-wait-wate.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 18, 2007 Share #108 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venkman Posted March 18, 2007 Share #109 Posted March 18, 2007 Thanks John, that's indeed not too bad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 18, 2007 Share #110 Posted March 18, 2007 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 18, 2007 Share #111 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted March 18, 2007 Share #112 Posted March 18, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 18, 2007 Share #113 Posted March 18, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 18, 2007 Share #114 Posted March 18, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 19, 2007 Share #115 Posted March 19, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 19, 2007 Share #116 Posted March 19, 2007 Well I forgot to retract a bid on e-bay and now have a extra 21 finder. Let me know if you need one http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230103685219 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted March 19, 2007 Share #117 Posted March 19, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 19, 2007 Share #118 Posted March 19, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 19, 2007 Share #119 Posted March 19, 2007 ... 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 19, 2007 Share #120 Posted March 19, 2007 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.