WATE convenience

[smsmd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Everyone,

 

After a recent M8 workshop I decided to order a WATE. There seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm for the lens on the forum. I read the reidreviews.com article and saw a number of issues noted, including the need for another viewfinder, lack of recognition of the focal length setting, issues with using an IR filter and a hood, a need to enter menus frequently.

 

I don't recall people on the forum having major issues with these items and wonder if, in practice, the lens is really hard to use? From Sean's article, I fear many problems while changing lenses and focal lengths.

 

I'm wondering if, in fact, the lens will be re-designed quickly to get around these "problems" and if I should hold off vs. jumping ahead if I am worried far more than I should be about WATE workarounds and the design will not change. Will future firmware updates deal with some of this?

 

Thanks to everyone for a great place to learn,

 

steve

[Advertisement]

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

[wparsonsgisnet]

Steve, my take is as follows:

 

1. The images from the WATE are clearly better than those from the CV15. Of course the difference in cost is 10 times.

2. What I really want is a fast, wide, prine lens. Leica has not made this lens yet. Leica has not indicated that it is in their thoughts.

3. The CV15 is ok. It's f5.6 compared to f4. Neither of those apertures rings my chimes, so I saved a lot of money and bought the CV15.

4. Nice lens.

5. When Leica makes a FWP lens -- I will buy it. I don't care what it costs.

6. I am actually considering looking for the R-15 asph lens and using the R-to-M adapter. This is supposed to be a desirable lens.

[AlanJW]

I have the WATE. I had the 15mm CV; now have the 12mm CV. The WATE is an excellent performer, and the issues raised about EXIF data, etc., would not deter me from buying. There is a big difference between 16mm and 21mm (21 and 28 full frame equiv) and the convenience of having all three focal lengths in one package outweighs any inconvenience in lens selection etc. While I'd like to see Leica address the WATE selection issues in a firmware revision, using the WATE is still more convenient than having to switch lenses.

[jonoslack]

Hi Everyone,

 

After a recent M8 workshop I decided to order a WATE. There seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm for the lens on the forum. I read the reidreviews.com article and saw a number of issues noted, including the need for another viewfinder, lack of recognition of the focal length setting, issues with using an IR filter and a hood, a need to enter menus frequently.

 

I don't recall people on the forum having major issues with these items and wonder if, in practice, the lens is really hard to use? From Sean's article, I fear many problems while changing lenses and focal lengths.

 

I'm wondering if, in fact, the lens will be re-designed quickly to get around these "problems" and if I should hold off vs. jumping ahead if I am worried far more than I should be about WATE workarounds and the design will not change. Will future firmware updates deal with some of this?

 

Thanks to everyone for a great place to learn,

 

steve

 

Hi Steve

I suppose it depends on what you want it for, and how you are planning to use it.

 

I have one, it's sharper than my 21mm at 21mm and much better than the CV15 (as it should be).

 

Of course, it's slow - but I'm never sure why anyone wants such a lens to use with a large aperture, of course, if you do . . . .

 

The three different focal lengths are more different than they might at first seem.

 

If you are going to use filters, then it's worth getting John's adaptor.

 

I use it for landscape and nature mostly, and prefer to use it without a filter (I do use filters for people pictures where the magenta blacks are an issue, but I'm less and less convinced about the need for them with greens - and I don't often use the WATE with people.)

 

I went out and spent a couple of hours with mine this morning - I love it, I don't find it hard changing the settings on the viewfinder, and I don't forget (often ). Mine is set to IR off, coding on, so I can live with the fact that the exif nearly always reports 18 - I have no problems with vignetting, and of course no cyan corners.

 

So I guess the reality of this lens is that it's a bother to use with filters (but perfectly possible). Without the filters it's a great lens - I certainly wouldn't be without mine.

[jonoslack]

Steve, my take is as follows:

 

2. What I really want is a fast, wide, prine lens. Leica has not made this lens yet. Leica has not indicated that it is in their thoughts.

 

Hi Bill

I hope you're well.

I hear this call a lot, but I can't really see why? DOF separation isn't really possible anyway, so most of us want as much as possible. You can hand hold the thing at stupidly slow shutter speeds, so you can virtually take pictures in the dark.

 

What are you going to use it for where you need it to be fast? . . . sorry, that sounds like a challenge - I'm just inquisitive, is all!

[wparsonsgisnet]

... I hear this call a lot, but I can't really see why? ...What are you going to use it for where you need it to be fast? ...!

 

Jono,

 

I photograph a lot of theater performances and would like a wide lens. Even tho we can see the stuff on stage, it's hard for the camera.

 

I use 35, 50, and 75 in f1.4. My 24 is f2.8 -- slow in comparison.

 

Leica made an R-15 in f2.8; why can't I have something a little longer that is faster than 2.8?

 

Realistically, expensive is expensive -- unless you take into account the life of the lens. I'm using a 90 'cron that is 40 or 50 years old. My 75 'lux is almost that old, right? Cheap in those terms.

 

If I sell it, it's probably worth, in current dollars, what I paid for it. What car can you say that about? A bugatti? Wasn't going to be able to afford one of those.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would be a VERY big lens , Bill. But useful, I agree. The Tegea 9.8 - a 1.5 kg monster- is f 1.8

[Guest sirvine]

This reminds me: what happens if one does not select any focal length when the WATE focal length menu pops up?

 

Obviously, I would prefer it defaults to 16mm, since I'm using it with the CV15, but I just can't tell. I guess a secondary question is whether it matters, since the in-camera correction is not likely to be all that different from 16mm to 21mm.

[fotografr]

Bill--Here is the lens for you.

 

eBay: Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm f/1.8 lens for Epson RD-1/Leica M (item 180126984024 end time Jun-13-07 11:41:45 PDT)

[smsmd]

Thanks you everyone,

 

I'll be using the lens for outdoor landscape photography. It will be on the camera as I backpack. I'm not worried about the speed and will carry a light tripod. IR is probably not a large issue for what I intend.

 

Is there a "workflow" that those of you who use the lens go thru after it is placed on the camera? I think that would help me a bit in terms of thinking thru the logistics.

 

Thanks again,

 

steve

[scho]

This reminds me: what happens if one does not select any focal length when the WATE focal length menu pops up?

 

Obviously, I would prefer it defaults to 16mm, since I'm using it with the CV15, but I just can't tell. I guess a secondary question is whether it matters, since the in-camera correction is not likely to be all that different from 16mm to 21mm.

 

The default setting is 18mm. I occasionally forget to set 16mm in the menu when using the CV 15 and it defaults to 18 when you don't make a selection.

[adan]

Here's MY take, having just done a little informal testing with the WATE and my 15 and 21 primes.

 

1. Yes, the WATE is a bit better than the 15 optically. Not enough to show up in my 10 x15" prints - but a bit cleaner at 100% pixels. That says more for the amazing 15 than it is a criticism of the WATE. And the WATE is performing at an effective stop faster.

 

2. My 21 f/2.8 prime (pre-ASPH) is ever so slightly better than the WATE at 21mm - at f/4. Again, just a faintly better 'tightness' to edges with the prime. The WATE also showed more barrel distortion.

 

3. So, since I don't really need 18mm anyway, the WATE would only replace one of my lenses now, and the quality difference wouldn't be worth the cost plus the other fiddly things (menus, big filters, etc.)

 

4. As to the other point in the original question: ANY lens wider than 24mm requires an accesory viewfinder on the M8 - regardless of who makes it or what model it is. If you don't wear glasses you might get away with using the whole viewfinder outside the lines for a 21 (doesn't work for me most of the time).

 

5. Bill P. I tried the 15mm Elmarit against my Sony R1 @ 24mm - and the Sony zoom edged it for fine detail. It is no doubt a superb 15mm as SLR retrofocus lenses go, esp @ f/2.8, and esp. as a lens that also covers the 24x36 format - but it seems huge and pricey just as a stop-gap until an M prime comes along.

 

6. Jono - a hand-holdable slow lens is fine for static subjects at low shutter speeds - but it does nothing to stop SUBJECT movement. Like Bill, I am hopeful for at least one fast superwide prime from Leica based on Stephan Daniel's interest in the subject when Guy and I talked to him at PMA.

 

My target would be at least an 18mm f/2.8 in the form factor of the pre-ASPH 21 (60mm filters) - a 15 f/2.8 might end up being just too big (a la Zeiss), and a 15 f/3.5 wouldn't add enough speed over the WATE or the Voigtlander.

[robertwright]

I think the issue (for me) is changing lenses and viewfinders. I just got the cv15 and I have a 21 pre-asph elmarit, and of course two finders. So changing lenses is a bit of a production at this end. The WATE would speed this tremendously, and turning two rings is a lot simpler than interchanging two lenses and two viewfinders. I think if anything the WATE simplifies workflow. It seems to be the best of all worlds.

 

Now if you like streetshooting from the hip on sunnydays, the cv15 is the lens to have. It depends on what you are doing. Doing assignment work, the WATE is a godsend.

 

When I total up what I have spend, 1400 for the elmarit, 300 for the cv15, 400 for the zeiss finder, and now, 250 for another zeiss finder, plus two filters, that is 2600 right there. Pluse coding, 150 for the milich adapter, 125 for leica on my old elmarit, the WATE is looking like a bargain.

[jonoslack]

Thanks you everyone,

 

I'll be using the lens for outdoor landscape photography. It will be on the camera as I backpack. I'm not worried about the speed and will carry a light tripod. IR is probably not a large issue for what I intend.

 

Is there a "workflow" that those of you who use the lens go thru after it is placed on the camera? I think that would help me a bit in terms of thinking thru the logistics.

 

Thanks again,

 

steve

Hi Steve

if you aren't using filters, it really is a doddle.

I have mine set to Lens Detection 'on'.

Put lens on, put on frankenfinder (if it isn't already on)

Set correct focal length on each, if you're doing close work set the distance accordingly, if not (or if you aren't sure) set distance to infinity.

 

If you change the focal length on the WATE, it's simply a habit to change it on the finder as well.

 

I quite often shoot at 21mm without the finder at all (it's roughly the whole of the rangefinder frame).

[jlm]

Bill: my 15 C/V opens to 4.5

[ejcaliguri@comcast.net]

Just read the thread -

 

I use the R15 Asph alot, especialy on the R9/DMR --- Would be worth a try on the M8. Got to get the adapter. I hear the Zeiss 15 2.8 ZM needed to be 're-tooled' from the Rep, and have one on order - so that will wait until ---- October/November? Merry Christmas?