Jump to content

WATE or wait?


jrp

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The MATE also is a zoom with clicks and strange zooming action. You can use it at intermediate focal lengths between the clicks. I did this with a second version MATE 15 years ago. It zooms the way it does for proper mechanical frame selection on M-cameras.

 

Mine doesn't..... And it's the M lens I use the most.

 

The MATE can't reach anywhere near infinity outside the three focal lengths. It doesn't achieve focus at all between the 50mm and 28mm setting and max focus is about 2 meters between 50mm and 35mm. It's actually possible to damage the internal mechanism if you persist in using it that way. The MATE is NOT a zoom.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Focus* will be accurate - the rangefinder will be unaffected. Viewing more precisely what you’ll get on pixels or film is where the EVF is required, and you can guess / approximate field of view without it.

 

That’s what I got accidentally with M6 TTL and MATE. Pictures taken slightly off click-stopped FL were in focus.

Your experience is not consistent with that of various others, as noted in the linked thread and in other discussions. And as Gordon writes, it’s not a good idea.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still on the fence.

 

The thing is, for very wide angles, the Voiglander 15mm iii is a touch better than the WATE:

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

 

and then you can add the 10mm 

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/08/voigtlander-heliar-hyper-wide-10mm-f5-6-review.html

 

for some really whacky perspectives.  In addition, there is less of a difference betwee 16mm and 21mm than might at first appear to be the case, other than for close ups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Recently, I started using both the WATE, and the MATE on my SL. Both have become indispensable.

I shoot a lot of 4K video, and not having to change lenses so much is great. The quality of both lenses is quite good. I think the IQ of the WATE is slightly better than my late (49mm) MATE.

I got rid of the 15mm Super Elmar, which was a good lens, but huge and front heavy on the SL. 

The wide angle range is my most used range because of the 4K factor, (the WATE on the SL in 4K is a 24-27-32mm (equivalent). And the MATE is 42-53-75mm.

I agree with jrp's post above. I have the Voigtlander III 15mm and it is indeed a fine lens. ....... but not in the same league as the WATE. (and I saw Vieri's test .....)

The next lens I look for is the 12mm Voightlander.  Then I will have an 18mm for 4K.

 

Don't think twice about either a WATE, or a MATE, (look for a 49mm one)

Rafael

Link to post
Share on other sites

My love affair with the WATE is exactly why I have decided to forego the 16-35mm (SL). I purchased mine years ago whilst visiting the Leica store in SOHO. It has become a lens that I almost always have in my bag, especially so when I travel. It is extremely quick to focus, and adjusting 16-18-21 is a snap. I have no issues with the IQ at the edges. A little side note on the new 16-35 SL, I am not sure why Leica chose to overlap the 24-90. 12-24mm would have been a better offering IMO--in fact that might have inspired me to purchase it. Good luck--lt 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My love affair with the WATE is exactly why I have decided to forego the 16-35mm (SL). I purchased mine years ago whilst visiting the Leica store in SOHO. It has become a lens that I almost always have in my bag, especially so when I travel. It is extremely quick to focus, and adjusting 16-18-21 is a snap. I have no issues with the IQ at the edges. A little side note on the new 16-35 SL, I am not sure why Leica chose to overlap the 24-90. 12-24mm would have been a better offering IMO--in fact that might have inspired me to purchase it. Good luck--lt

I can understand your position since you already have the WATE. Price wise, the 16-35m isn’t that much more than WATE. Therefore decision was straightforward for me to acquire the 16-35mm. If the 16-35mm is satisfactory, I might get a copy of WATE for my M10 later.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On "coverage."  I don't have the 24-90.  And 21 to 35 mm is the space that I live in much of the time.  I think Leica chose the right range for an all-day lens.  On a recent trip with the CL, the 11-23 was the lens that proved most useful (that's 16-35-eff.)

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why not in the same league when Viere seems to prefer the Voigtlander?

I just tried to revisit the review, because I like Viere's reviews, but they were not available online. I will try later.

In short, I remember this;

the comparison photos he uses,were not, "blister sharp". Not talking resolution of the examples of the lens comparisons.. But rather the image quality of the examples, on the website page.

Also when I used my Voightlander III it never had that "extra pop" the WATE has. The Voightlander is a flatter, duller rendering lens than the WATE.

Sharpness is not everything for me in judging a lens.

I don't know ..... maybe I am seeing things.... quien sabe ........?    who knows......?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to revisit the review, because I like Viere's reviews, but they were not available online. I will try later.

In short, I remember this;

the comparison photos he uses,were not, "blister sharp". Not talking resolution of the examples of the lens comparisons.. But rather the image quality of the examples, on the website page.

Also when I used my Voightlander III it never had that "extra pop" the WATE has. The Voightlander is a flatter, duller rendering lens than the WATE.

Sharpness is not everything for me in judging a lens.

I don't know ..... maybe I am seeing things.... quien sabe ........?    who knows......?

You’re not seeing things.

A lot of it is in the formula for the glass.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re not seeing things.

A lot of it is in the formula for the glass.

Or the coatings.

 

Anyway, one of my potential suppliers tells me that Leica hope to ship the first SL 16-35mm late next month so the errr wait continues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to revisit the review, because I like Viere's reviews, but they were not available online. I will try later.

In short, I remember this;

the comparison photos he uses,were not, "blister sharp". Not talking resolution of the examples of the lens comparisons.. But rather the image quality of the examples, on the website page.

Also when I used my Voightlander III it never had that "extra pop" the WATE has. The Voightlander is a flatter, duller rendering lens than the WATE.

Sharpness is not everything for me in judging a lens.

I don't know ..... maybe I am seeing things.... quien sabe ........?    who knows......?

 

 

Hello Rafael,

 

here is the ink to the comparison: 

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

 

About rendering, it is definitely personal. Rendering aside, for my work as a landscape photographer, the Voigtlander made more sense than the WATE. Smaller (especially once I sawed off the lens hood!), lighter, sharper, focusses closer, easier to filter (the WATE still vignettes a tiny bit at 16mm with 100mm square filters, and the cut-off ring is a pain, despite Leica's own black thingy to block the holes). Not to mention about one order of magnitude cheaper, which is great for me since I use it in pretty scary locations weather-wise, seaside, sand, salt, lava rocks, etc. and damaging a 500 US lens to which I already saw off the hood is one thing, to damage a 6K US WATE is omitting else ;) 

 

Hope this helps, best regards

 

Vieri

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Vieri for the link.

I had forgotten how extensive a test you did!

A lot of work ....

 

I have not yet used filters with the WATE, but I guess the primary reason it will replace the 15 Voightlander III, in general, is because I am mostly shooting video 4K, and the "Tri" aspect of the WATE is great. Less changing, less dust.

Remember dust in regular photography can be easily spotted. But in video? ... with a panning shot .... the dust stays put during the pan.

 

I would like to pickup a 12mm Voightlander which would yield an 18mm in 4K.

I still love Voightlander, for what it is .... completely worthwhile.

Rafael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...