MATES, WATES, and Zooms on the M240

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rick's post below from the Sony A7R thread prompted me to start this thread.

 

Karl,

 

As everyone knows I really like the M240. Specifically, what I like, in the context of us talking about WA here in these last posts about super-wide angle lenses:

 

The M240 + WATE is just the smallest compact travel system that allows a photographer to trek around the world and take the coolest pictures of the highest quality. Sony, has got their work cut out for them to eclipse the kind of things you can do in a small form factor with high quality lenses. The lenses are the thing for me.

 

You linked to some CV 12 pictures. I'm just starting to put September's month long European pictures up on my flickr site (I haven't updated it for 2-years). Specifically, the last pictures I added of Diocletian's Palace are taken with the M240 + WATE at 16mm/ISO200/f8/3.0 sec. You are welcome to click on my link below and take a look at them.

 

Rick

 

Thanks for the link Rick - you photography is not half bad .

 

Seriously though there are a lot of fantastic photos there, and you really have a handle on the use of UW lenses. I already have an E49 MATE and although I was NOT going to buy any more lenses I think that link to your photos has probably now sold me on the WATE. My widest lens to date is 21mm.

 

I have a 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R which I bought thinking that there would be times where a single zoom in this range would be quick and easy but I must admit that I'm not sure that the ergonomics of this lens on the M240 really suits me.

 

Yes, the M240's EVF is not as good as the camera's OVF (or perhaps some other EVFs) for slow and considered photography I really don't know what everyone is complaining about! What are peoples thoughts about the EVF vs the Frankenfinder?

 

The 28-90 gives very impressive results but is heavy & bulky on the M240 and although I can take it out as a single lens kit I really don't mind carrying more than one M-les with me. Furthermore, the long reach back and forth between the focus and zoom rings, and the long throw of these two rings on the 28-90 is a pain, unlike the very small hand and finger movements required to adjust the MATE (and I assume WATE). I'm much faster using the MATE.

 

The extra stop of the 28-90 over the Tri-Elmars is is now probably offset by the better ISO performance of the M240 and Monochrom (not that I shoot at high ISO often) and that the longer and heavier 28-90 does need to be held just that but more carefully at times.

 

I had also been thinking earlier about the 21-35 Vario-Elmar-R on the M240 but I'm now off the idea as the MATE and WATE seem to be a better option.

 

If my thoughts don't change I'm inclined to unload my 28-90 Vario-Elmar, 28-PC, and R-M adapter which will easily fund a WATE (but probably without the Frankenfinder) which will get far more use. I will obviously have no problem selling an immaculate boxed 28-90 which is now worth well more than I paid for it.

 

Ofcourse I also can't use the R zoom on the Monochrom or M9.

 

I'm in no rush but this is just how I'm thinking at the moment.

It had been over 10 years since I 'd owned a zoom lens and I just don't think I like using them any more, MATE excepted!

Or do I just need more time to get used to the 28-90?

[algrove]

Unlike the MATE, the WATE EXIF data always seems to show 16mm which does not fit well into what data I like from my camera. Even though R lenses are larger, the 15/2.8 I use nearly all the time when I want wide and I leave the WATE behind now. It is a stop faster and shows no signs of vignetting and the corner to corner sharpness beats the WATE in my mind. Many individuals mention that they use the WATE at 16 the majority of the time so why not have a 15/2.8 which is a stop faster and better quality and focuses to less than one foot. Keep your SEM21 for your MM.

 

I have examples posted under Jaap's thread R lenses on M.

[efreed2754]

Mark, thanks for the thread, will enjoy learning what others think as we get to learn our new camera.

 

While the R lenses are wonderful, they are heavy (contrary to M's DNA). I expect to carry APO 100 lens with APO 2X (also have 28, 90 and 180). That gives me macro with ELPRO and reasonable telephoto options.

 

Like you, have a 49 MATE and expect to get lots of use when traveling. If raise ISO to 800 it's like shooting with a 2.0 lens. So other than using wide apertures, MATE will be better than ever.

 

My super wide is SE18 3.8 which I decided over the WATE and am very pleased. Was using an 18 finder which now leave home to use LV or Viso Finder.

 

This means 18, MATE and 100 APO make a minimal package. Can add 35 Summicron, 50 Lux or 75 Cron for speed. Love the options the M provides

 

Ed

[Rick]

Unlike the MATE, the WATE EXIF data always seems to show 16mm which does not fit well into what data I like from my camera. Even though R lenses are larger, the 15/2.8 I use nearly all the time when I want wide and I leave the WATE behind now. It is a stop faster and shows no signs of vignetting and the corner to corner sharpness beats the WATE in my mind. Many individuals mention that they use the WATE at 16 the majority of the time so why not have a 15/2.8 which is a stop faster and better quality and focuses to less than one foot. Keep your SEM21 for your MM.

 

I have examples posted under Jaap's thread R lenses on M.

 

Vignetting of the R 15mm is about 2 1/3 stops and 3 stops for the WATE. The WATE carries higher contrast and sharpness across the entire field. I'm not sure about distortion, but I think the WATE has less as well.

 

So, for me, for a lens that is half the weight of the heavy Leica/Scheider R 15mm I think the WATE is a brilliant choice... and you get a 18mm and 21mm, which I use all the time. And, having a constant f4.0 is great.

[jamriman]

I got a good deal on a e49 MATE a few months ago. One day soon I hope it will be on my new M240. Thanks for the topic!

[k-hawinkler]

Unlike the MATE, the WATE EXIF data always seems to show 16mm which does not fit well into what data I like from my camera. Even though R lenses are larger, the 15/2.8 I use nearly all the time when I want wide and I leave the WATE behind now. It is a stop faster and shows no signs of vignetting and the corner to corner sharpness beats the WATE in my mind. Many individuals mention that they use the WATE at 16 the majority of the time so why not have a 15/2.8 which is a stop faster and better quality and focuses to less than one foot. Keep your SEM21 for your MM.

 

I have examples posted under Jaap's thread R lenses on M.

 

I believe there is a separate entry for each of the 3 focal length on my M9.

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried the Vario-Elmar myself but like you I find it too bulky. The combination of a WATE and MATE works well for me on the M240. I find my most common lens combination is either that or a 21 / 35 / 90.

[algrove]

Vignetting of the R 15mm is about 2 1/3 stops and 3 stops for the WATE. The WATE carries higher contrast and sharpness across the entire field. I'm not sure about distortion, but I think the WATE has less as well.

 

So, for me, for a lens that is half the weight of the heavy Leica/Scheider R 15mm I think the WATE is a brilliant choice... and you get a 18mm and 21mm, which I use all the time. And, having a constant f4.0 is great.

 

Rick

 

My 15/2.8 does not vignette on the M as you suggest so I am not sure what you mean as quoted above in your first sentence.

 

You should think about renting a 15/2.8 R someday and then your tune might change about its sharpness and contrast, not to mention its lack of distortion versus the WATE (which I also own).

[algrove]

I tried the Vario-Elmar myself but like you I find it too bulky. The combination of a WATE and MATE works well for me on the M240. I find my most common lens combination is either that or a 21 / 35 / 90.

 

I am not clear which Vario-Elmar did you tried? Leica has made many R lenses called Vario-Elmar, such as in wides like the 21-35, 35-70.

[MarkP]

I am not clear which Vario-Elmar did you tried? Leica has made many R lenses called Vario-Elmar, such as in wides like the 21-35, 35-70.

 

I would assume the 28-90 as that was the lens discussed in my OP

[Rick]

Hi Lou, I'm just looking at the charts from Leica and reading Puts from the Leica Compendium. It states the R 15mm has 2.2 stops of vignetting. It also shows MTF charts for the WATE that look a lot better on central sharpness and a lot better in the edges where the R 15 shows noticeable softness. He also states that the R 15mm displays distortion, but I think you can say that about the WATE if you want to look for it in certain architectural photographs.

 

I'm sure the R 15mm is fantastic. But, I don't own the R 15mm so, I can only tell you how good the WATE is. And, it is so good it is bad. Oh, and the WATE is coupled to the M, incase you want to use the rangefinder.

[MarkP]

I already have the 21 SEM and 21 Summilux. I take the point that if the WATE is primarily going to be used at 16 and I decide to go for a fixed lens in the 15-16mm range I wonder whether I may be better with the 2.8/15 Distagon T* than the 2.8/15 Super-Elmarit-R:

The Zeiss is considerably lighter than the Leica 550gm vs 710gm (excluding the R-M adapter)

The Zeiss vs Leica+adapter are probably of similar bulk.

The Zeiss is considerably cheaper than the Leica.

The Zeiss and Leica-R are not rangefinder-coupled which probably doesn't matter (?) considering the vast DOF these lenses have.

 

HAS ANYONE TESTED THE 2.8/15 ZM DISTAGON WITH THE M240 FIRMWARE UPGRADE?

 

Furthermore, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is a 6-bit lens code for a fixed WA greater than 18mm so maybe one is on the way (ha )

 

 

That the IQ of the MATE is not as good as the fixed primes in that range does bother me but it's hardly a poor performer. However, the WATE is small, light (335gm, $17 per gram), high image quality, versatile (3 lenses in one), but one stop slower (having said that it's a super WA and much shorter/lighter which may offset this) , and with the M240 I can further reduce the cost and form-factor with the EVF rather than the Frankenfinder!

[John McMaster]

Still some pink uncoded, much improved when set to 21mm Elmarit asph but still some tingeing mostly on RHS...

 

john

[algrove]

I use real world images to make my decisions not books and charts. Take a look at my images when first testing the R 15/2.8 under Jaap's R lenses on M where I downloaded some boatyard images.

 

I tried the Zeiss 15 two years ago while in Germany on my M9P at Photo Arsenal, Nuremburg. Almost bought it but then they said I had to pay cash instead of using my perfectly good credit card which they never even looked at so I walked from the store never to spend a penny with them ever since due to their attitude. I hate to think how much business they have lost from me over that matter ever since then.

 

I like the filter barrel in the Leica one. I do not recall seeing one on the Zeiss. At least with the Leica one and with proper adapter I can now get lens info included in my EXIF data which is important to me.

 

Just adding a further comment. While the R 15 can be a walk around lens, I would consider the WATE and MATE as better walk around lenses. I primarily use the 15 R on tripod for landscapes (see my Florida Keys shots-all while using tripod in the thread R lenses on M).

 

Thus both the WATE and R15 for have different uses IMHO with the WATE having the most flexibility of the two due to its size and ability to change FL at will. Is it a better performer on the M? You know my opinion from my experiences, but all have different needs and we all use the same lenses a bit differently too.

[Manolo Laguillo]

If I would be in need of a 15 mm, I would pick the 16-18-21 WATE, no doubt.

I would forget other possibilities.

It's the smallest and lightest, and f.4 is perfectly ok.

The difference between 15mm and 16mm is nearly negligible.

[MarkP]

Thanks for your advice Algrove and Manolo. The WATE seems to be the go as for this I want a compact and more flexible lens.

[jdlaing]

Thanks for your advice Algrove and Manolo. The WATE seems to be the go as for this I want a compact and more flexible lens.

 

I agree. I would not be without mine.

[MarkP]

Whilst we're on the topic, for those of you who have the WATE and 21-SEM and/or 18-SEM how does the performance of the WATE compare with these fixed focal length lenses?

There's certainly not much difference in maximum aperture, and the 21 SEM is a stellar lens but I've never used the WATE.

[Ecar]

I agree. I would not be without mine.

Same here. I re-discovered the WATE with the M240. The better high-ISO performance and the EVF greatly extend its usability.

Pair it with the MATE and add a 90 of your choice and you've got a great travel kit that covers all your needs.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Same here. I re-discovered the WATE with the M240. The better high-ISO performance and the EVF greatly extend its usability.

Pair it with the MATE and add a 90 of your choice and you've got a great travel kit that covers all your needs.

 

Not quite. I'd also take a 35 or 50 Summilux (probably the latter)