28mm to close to 24mm but WATE ist a good lense ?

[Guest Olof]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i am just wondering why some people say that 24mm ist to close to 28mm, but the WATE should be an amazing lens ? 16/19/21 the difference over all is 5mm or do you mostly use 16mm and thats the reason why you love it ?

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Jan when you get into the superwide area the 2 mm or so is really a big difference compared to a 24 and 28. The 28 if you step back a few steps you can get that 24 view but in the superwide first you may not be able to move but more important the look or distortion of the lenses change. The 16mm is a completely different look than a 21mm if youwalked forward to shoot the same area. Now some would argue the 18mm was really not needed between the 16 and 21mm settings of the WATE and I said the same thing but on further use the look is different and the relationship between foreground and background

[stunsworth]

As Guy implies it the percentage difference that's important. A 85 and 90mm lens will be very similar, but 16 and 21mm are quite different.

[Guest Olof]

As Guy implies it the percentage difference that's important. A 85 and 90mm lens will be very similar, but 16 and 21mm are quite different.

 

Thats quite interesting, but why did Leica than introduce the 24mm... has it some benefits against the 21mm ?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well there is a distortion and look difference also may not as severe like the superwides and some folks will buy a 21,28 ,50 or 24 , 35, 75 . you can never build enough lenses from a OEM's point of view also. for us it's about what preference we like and also we can't forget there is a frame line change between 24 and 28

[stunsworth]

Jan, as Guy says it depends on the other lenses you use. I'm currently using a 24/35/50 set most of the time - with the intention of adding a 75 to replace the 50. A valid alternative would be 21/28/50.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually right now i kind of created a dilemma with buying the WATE. Love the lens but Now without a 24 2.8 my fastest wide lens is the 28 cron. Not a big deal but for some folks that maybe a big issue. Having these choices is good and also the 24mm is one sharp lens to boot. If a 24mm F2 came out tomorrow though i would probably be the first in the line to get one.

[lars_bergquist]

Practising M photogs know their lenses and grow the corresponding eyes ;-). So you have a 28 mounted and think about a wider view? The practical step is a 16 or 18 mm lens – not both of them and certainly not a third one too! You know what sort of picture that wider lens will give you, and use it. The same goes for any other focal length. I do have days when I wear my 75 mm eyes.

 

The only people who feel a need to carry BOTH a 16 and an 18 and a 21 mm lens at the same time, are card-carrying members of the Wheelbarrow School of Photography.

 

The bane of SLR photographers is their zoom lenses. They stand around, infinitesimally adjusting them instead of taking pictures. The WATE simply isn't practical (see the ’New lenses for the M’ thread) and one other reason is the extremely high chance is that you will lose your way around the lens and finder settings and use the wrong ones if you are in a hurry or are distracted in any other way.

 

The old man from the Age of Prime Time