Do you use your WATE as a WATE

[eudemian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hopefully, some time later this year I will go for one wide lens. I have followed the debates and reviews of the various wide angle lenses(?) and I have to convince myself of several things.

 

I recognise the quality of the WATE but is it the match for a single focal length such as 21 Elmarit. I know you gain a stop with the Elmarit but do you gain other things by choosing the Elmarit?

 

My other concern is the actual use of the WATE. I remember that with my 17-35 Nikkor I tended to use it at 17. So can any WATE owners let me know the proportion of focal lengths they use, do you use all three focal lengths or do you find yourself settling into one comfortable focal length?

 

This would be very useful information to me, and hopefully others?

 

Tom

[luigi bertolotti]

Tom, you have well touched the problem of the WATE, when you spoke about the use you did of your Nikkor Zoom: the really significant role of WATE is that it adds 16mm focal to M8 AND FILM Leica users: most of us passionate Leica users have a 21, most of us wouldn't go for a 18... too close to 21... lot of us have bought, or think of (me included) the Cos/Voigt 15... now Leica has reached 16 ! And 16 is decently far from 21... I do not think I'll buy a WATE, but think if I had one, I would use almost always at 16: how many are the situations in which one says "mmhhh, 16 doesn't fit right...let's try 18..."?

And lenses for Leica are so compact... I do not know if would it be so different, for me, to carry a WATE or, say, a ASPH 21 + CV 15...

To me, unless you are healthy and completely prone to buy Leica items, is better to think twice and more about buying a WATE... I do not know if they are only self-sustaining rumors born from this forum, but IF really Leica would announce a fixed focus 15 or 14... I would not feel well having a WATE...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I use the WATE at all three setting mostly 21mm,16mm and 18 mm and there is a difference between those focal lengths , it may not sound like much on paper but it is there

[geoffreyg]

This is a good question. Yesterdya I was shooting some interiors with the CV 15 and it was just a bit too wide. The simpler answer is to have a CV 18 or 21 handy, to change. But perhaps the WATE gives one the easier way?

 

The other tri-e (28/35/50) is pretty easy to rationalize. Does 21/24/28 on the M8 work as well? Does the perspectival distortion change as one chooses the different lens?

[wparsonsgisnet]

I would be interested in a different aspect of the WATE -- the fact that it's really a zoom lens.

Guy, perhaps, would you zoom while taking a shot? I'd like to see one of these trick shots that zooms can do.

If I could make one of those spiral-like shots that emphasize a object in the middle of a swirl it would be an incentive in addition to the extra quality that the lens provides, not to mention the ability to focus. It's a portrait style that I'd like to try.

When I first heard of the TE and then the WATE, I thot they were strange concoctions, but they seem neater all the time.

 

Guy, can you make one of these magic shots?

[steve_l]

Read Sean Reid's recent reviews of the superwides (http://www.reidreviews.com, and yes, you have to pay for the info, a very cost-effective way to evaluate the lenses).

 

All of the features and issues are clearly discussed there....you'll have to decide for yourself which tradeoffs are relevant to you, but for me, I felt I was only giving up the stop (and not even that, relative to the CV lenses).

 

I had my WATE out for the first time over the last two days, and I found that there is a big difference between 21,24, and 28. (which I actually already knew, from using a Canon 1D with 16-35 zoom). At that wide a focal length, a lot changes with small differences in focal length, which are still a big percentage change. And unlike longer lengths, perspective distortion is a bigger issue with some viewpoints, and it is nice to be able to adjust easily to avoid that where possible.

 

I was a "single focal length Leica" guy for 20 years before the Canon (to go digital) experience, and now I like being able to adjust. I also have a 21 and a 24, and now will not use the 21, and will use the 24 only in low light, both for the extra stop and for the ability to focus, see the shooting info, and compose all with the rangefinder (too hard to do all of that when wide open in changing light and focus situations with an external finder)

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the WATE at all three setting mostly 21mm,16mm and 18 mm.......

 

Yes Guy, those are the only settings there are.

 

The old man from the Age of Prme Lenses

[brucek]

I would be interested in a different aspect of the WATE -- the fact that it's really a zoom lens.

Guy, perhaps, would you zoom while taking a shot? I'd like to see one of these trick shots that zooms can do.

 

Bill:

 

I don't have my WATE yet but I do have a TE and here is one of those zoomed pictures you asked about using it. The photo is of a strand of red lights. I had the M8 on a tripod and zoomed from 50 to 35 during the exposure.

 

Bruce

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill:

 

I don't have my WATE yet but I do have a TE and here is one of those zoomed pictures you asked about using it. The photo is of a strand of red lights. I had the M8 on a tripod and zoomed from 50 to 35 during the exposure.

 

Bruce

 

So, the TE is a zoom as well?

[brucek]

So, the TE is a zoom as well?

 

No, not really. Not in the true sense of the term. My understanding is that it's only supposed to be used at the three indicated focal lengths. But it sure seems to zoom like a zoom...

 

Bruce

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bruce, thanks for posting the pix. It's very interesting how the distortion at the corner "twists" the seeming ribbon of lights.

 

I am rethinking my intention to get the WATE based on doing this with portraits. I've never seen portraits done this way and maybe they'd look really lousy. Then, of course, I'd only have a really nice lens for its customary purposes.

[sean_reid]

Yes Guy, those are the only settings there are.

 

The old man from the Age of Prme Lenses

 

Actually, that's not quite true. The WATE is a true zoom and one can actually use it at any intermediate setting between 16 - 21 mm, albeit with estimated framing.

[sean_reid]

Hopefully, some time later this year I will go for one wide lens. I have followed the debates and reviews of the various wide angle lenses(?) and I have to convince myself of several things.

 

I recognise the quality of the WATE but is it the match for a single focal length such as 21 Elmarit. I know you gain a stop with the Elmarit but do you gain other things by choosing the Elmarit?

 

My other concern is the actual use of the WATE. I remember that with my 17-35 Nikkor I tended to use it at 17. So can any WATE owners let me know the proportion of focal lengths they use, do you use all three focal lengths or do you find yourself settling into one comfortable focal length?

 

This would be very useful information to me, and hopefully others?

 

Tom

 

I found it enormously useful to have all three focal lengths on the WATE.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[AlanJW]

To answer the OP question, I use the WATE at all three settings. There is huge difference between 16 and 21, and I don't own a 21 anyhow. There is also a huge difference between the VC 12 and the WATE 16. Yes its "only" 4mm, but at those focal lengths it is shuge percentage of the field of view. Using the WATE finder, one can do a bot of composing and pick the right FL for the situation. By the way, I have a TE also, so I have six focal lengths in two compact lenses and can cover almost everything I need. I do have the VC 12 and VC 75 for the very short and long(er), And a 35 and 50 Summicron for a bit more speed (but I especially don't use the 50 very much any more).

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Thanks Alan pretty much said what i was going to say just was out shooting this morning . Actually this does relate I shot the WATE at 16 , 18 and 21mm doing a PR job this morning and threw in the 12mm and 135mm also. And my 28mm all within 2 hours. Anyway 16,18,21mm seems like oh just a couple of MM but the reality is it is a big difference and yes at 16mm the prespective is different than 18mm more of that ump ( not even a word) effect. Think full frame for a second here you are talking effectively a 21, 24 and 28mm . From our film days we know that is actually quite big between them and 21 is a way different lens than a 24mm as far as the look of the image and so is the 28mm . I guess what throws us off is the numbers but really what counts is the angle of view.

 

21mm equals 91.7 degrees

24mm equals 84 degrees

28mm equals 75 degrees

 

Now with your eyes imagine those degree marks or get a tool out and do that and those numbers are quite large in difference.

 

really there is a world of difference in the super wides in MM than in the longer lenses

[Joe Mondello]

I don't have a WATE but I get the gist of your question.

 

One reason I purchased the Leica Variable zoom finder 21-24-28 for my CV 21 and CV 15 was so that I could see if and when I wanted to change to the wider or narrower FOV. So I use the finder as an el cheapo WATE replacement . . . kinda.

[eudemian]

As always good and diverse advice.

 

I still think this is going to be one of the trickiest lens choices, it was a no brainer for the 50 summilux and the 75 apo cron but this seems a more difficult problem to clarify and then make a judgement.

 

Yes Sean I have read your new wideangle report (with difficulty ) and I am still wanting to get a more conrete appreciation of the quality of the 21 Elmarit viz a viz the WATE. Can anyone provide any input for this query?

 

I think this boils down to size and handalability (the frakenfinder scares the living daylights out of me), and also to optical quality and how important an extra stop of light is.

 

Why does photography entail so many imponderables?

 

Tom

[ho_co]

Thomas--

See also the Puts articles on the WATE and the 21.

[phovsho]

I have the Wate and the 21mm. Both are eceptional lens.

 

I'm loving the WATE as a lense I can put on the M8 and forget about. There is a lot of difference between 16, 18 and 21, as has been pointed out above. As someone who did most of their film shooting using 21mm and 28mm/35mm the WATE covers probably 80% of my shooting situations very well. Interestingly, I wouldn't have bought the WATE if I was sticking solely to film - my style of photography doesn't call very wide lens)

 

I will probably make the WATE, a 28mm/f2.0 (for speed and a little more intimacy) and a 90 macro (macro and portraits) as my travel kit. If not the 28/2.0 then the 35/1.4.

 

I'm not sure where the 21 fits in my plans going forward. I'm also know longer sure where 50mm fits anymore either, but that's anothe rissue all together.

 

Murray

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[xjr]

This optic is a true zoom but the finder only caters fo 16,18 and 21. There are noticeable and above all most usefull differences from 16 to 18 to 21 view angles.Mine is used at 18mm most of the time but having 16mm is a great advantage which gives that extra 7or so degrees.The 21mm is difficult for me but I am getting used to it.The f4.0 is deemed slow by some but never found this a problem,not really.The finder is deemed by some to be rather huge...Nothing further from the truth. It is nicely shaped, very bright ,correction for paralax catered for and also a built-in spirit level! Now I think that this lense and its finder require a dedicated body.The results are superb by the way and in the true Leica canon. As for the price, the question would be : How much to buy a 21mmASPH f2.8 ? plus say the new-coming Zeiss 18 f4.0. The 16-18-21 is then cheap is it not ? for what you get [ and if you can wait a few months !