WATE vs other wide angles?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thinking about getting a wide angle, mainly for use with the SL, but also with the M240.

It would be used for casual/candid people shots (street, indoors), and occasionally urban streetscapes.

I guess a WA zoom for the SL may be introduced sometime, but I don't see AF or IS important enough at wide angle, so I'd rather not have the bulk that such an SL lens would bring.

The SL already gives me 24mm at f/2.8, so I'm looking wider than that.

I don't want a zoom (which a WATE is) just for the hell of it - it's one more control to get in the way when you are capturing people quickly.

 

So, my questions are:

- are there advantages to a WA zoom like the WATE that are less obvious e.g. is there a big difference in framing between the two ends of the range?

- what alternative primes should I consider in the same focal length bracket as the WATE, preferably with larger aperture?

 

Thank you in advance for the benefits of all your experience. It's what I value about this forum.

[michaelwj]

A quick answer to your second question;

Wider than 24mm in Leica lenses you have the 3.4/21mm, the 21/1.4, and the 3.8(?)/18, and the WATE at f/4.

Apart from the 1.4/21, they're not much faster than the WATE, what you gain is smaller size, and less distortion. The 1.4/21 is big and expensive. The WATE gives you 16mm.

If I using it only on an M, I'd go for the compare 3.4/21. When ever I mount a WATE to my M6 I find the size its drawback - and the price . But, throw the SL into the mix and the WATE doesn't seem all that big anymore... For use on both, I'd go the WATE.

Otherwise, voigtlander makes some excellent wides that are worth exploring - but I have no first hand experience with them.

[jrp]

21mm is probably too close to 24mm to make it worthwhile, although the Summilux provides a distinctive rendering and 2 extra stops. The 18mm Leica or 15mm Voigtlander do bring enough extra breadth to make them worth carrying and they will be as good as, if not better, than the WATE.

 

There are weight/bulk/price/convenience trade offs in all these choices, which only you can make.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, I'm certainly open to Voigtlander and Zeiss alternatives.

[james.liam]

Lloyd Chambers extensively reviewed the WATE and compared the 18 and 21 Elmars. Worth the subscription for his conclusions.

[helged]

An advantage with WATE is that one doesn't run into red edges/corners. Yes, miscolouring can be (partly) corrected i pp, but personally I prefer white sand and white buildings and snow and what have you remaining white out of the camera...

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An advantage with WATE is that one doesn't run into red edges/corners. Yes, miscolouring can be (partly) corrected i pp, but personally I prefer white sand and white buildings and snow and what have you remaining white out of the camera...

Good point, for using on the SL. 

[tsleica]

There is the fun factor too..the WATE..is fun...just stick it on your cam..and have some..but I use the A7..

[helged]

Good point, for using on the SL. 

 

 

Some miscolouring on the SL, though...

[Mr.Q]

I purchased the WATE for my M9P and A7II a couple years ago, but since selling my Sony gear I'm getting less use out of it because I don't want to purchase the frankenfinder. I'm also questioning if I really need anything wider than 21mm, and it's ridiculous to have close to $6,000 wrapped up in a lens that I have limited use for.  So I'm currently thinking about swapping the WATE for a 21mm prime. 

The CV 21/1.8 Ultron is reportedly sharper than the 21 LUX and retails for about $1,050 which is a ridiculous bargain. Obviously I'd lose the 6bit coding but there is no color fringing with this lens. As with all Voigtlander wides, it creates beautiful sunstars which is a bonus feature. The downsides are the non-removable petal hood, size, and weight (412 grams).  Also, I'd expect that the color/rendering isn't as nice as Leica or Zeiss lenses.

The 21/3.4 SEM seems to strike the best balance. It exhibits the best technical IQ and it's rendering is flat out gorgeous. It's small, light-weight, and the pricing is reasonable. It's a bit slow at f3.4, but I only shoot static subjects with such a wide lens, so it's not much of an issue. This is what I'm probably going to get.

[LocalHero1953]

From reading the responses here and on similar threads (which I should have read before starting this one - apologies all round), the best options look like the WATE, the SEM 21 and the CV Super-Wide-Heliar 15. Most of the others offer no size benefits over the WATE: picking a larger lens would mean I'd be unlikely to use it on the M, just on the SL. (I'm unlikely to get a frankenfinder for the M - I'd rely on the Viso/EVF if exact framing is vital)

 

I have little experience in this w/a range. How big a jump is it from, say, 15 to 21? Does it substantially change the type of image you aim for? Is 15 too much of an acquired taste for normal use? I realise these are subjective judgements but all subjective opinions are welcome!

[michaelwj]

Quick answers;

Huge. The same % jump as 50 to 35.

Yes.

I think so. I find 15 special purpose, but can happily go out with just a 21.