jonoslack Posted May 24, 2007 Share #21 Posted May 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 ! Hi Angelos I couldn't have put it bettter - both the lens and the frankenfinder are excellent, and produce excellent results. Mine do (mostly) have a dedicated body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 24, 2007 Posted May 24, 2007 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Do you use your WATE as a WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
woodyspedden Posted May 24, 2007 Share #22 Posted May 24, 2007 Be careful or we will end up using this lens as a paperwate! Having fun.......let's laugh! Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted May 25, 2007 Share #23 Posted May 25, 2007 For a finder, is there any decent solution other than the frankenfinder? Is there a compact 15mm finder with some room around the edges that will allow you to get a better estimate of where the edges of the shot will be? JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machaon Posted May 25, 2007 Share #24 Posted May 25, 2007 This question may have variable answers according to the mood of the day. I bought a WATE because my old 2,8/21 pre-asph (1986) was giving strange couloured images with the M8, known phenomenon with the M6/Slides for I used it only in B & W, with peripheral distorsion, and also because I needed a true wide angle for architectural purpose. I mostly use it as a 16 mm (eq 21) with the Frankenstein viewfinder but in some cases I appreciate the other angles... The overall impression is good : high contrast, low distorsion, some chromatic aberrations and quite a high sensitivity to flare (hood ?). I am not using filters of any sort. The mecanic is ok but could be better. The viewfinder is excellent and convenient, very precise, even if quite bulky !!! I might go, one day, for a single angle lens, ie 16 mm, if any... Cheers, Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 25, 2007 Share #25 Posted May 25, 2007 For a finder, is there any decent solution other than the frankenfinder? Is there a compact 15mm finder with some room around the edges that will allow you to get a better estimate of where the edges of the shot will be? JC John, There are several, see the Ultra wides article. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted May 25, 2007 Share #26 Posted May 25, 2007 For a finder, is there any decent solution other than the frankenfinder? Is there a compact 15mm finder with some room around the edges that will allow you to get a better estimate of where the edges of the shot will be? JC The Ricoh 21 - 28 in theory should work reasonably well at 16 and 21. I've got one, and I'm expecting my 30% off WATE "any day now". I'll report back once I've had a chance to test the combination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.