Enbee Posted July 22, 2018 Share #1 Posted July 22, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thinking of purchasing a Lecia wide angle lens. I have a 15mm Voigtlander that I use on M and SL. However, I have seen quality of photographs are better with the WATE lens. Now that 16-35 has been released, I would like an opinion on which one I should consider to purchase. I have started using SL for most of my landscape photography but I really do enjoy M wide angle photography as well, unless the exposure is not more than a minute. If you have used any of the above lenses, I would be grateful if you can share your thoughts regarding the same. Thank You! Nitesh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 Hi Enbee, Take a look here 16-35 SL vs. WATE M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sillbeers15 Posted July 22, 2018 Share #2 Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Below is my opinion, WATE SL16-35 Size Compact DSLR Lens equil Functionality Manual focus Autofocus Non weather seal Weather seal Cannot accept std filters Same as 24-90 filter size of 82mm Long term value Mechanical, keeps value Electric motor, electric circuity,..limited life Image quality Great M lens Extraordinary great SL lens Coat M lens prices second most expensive SL lens (just below 90-280) I have the 16-35mm. It is certainly a lens I'll keep. I'll still get the WATE for usage on my M10 when the opportunity comes. Just no hurry. Edited July 22, 2018 by sillbeers15 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted July 22, 2018 Share #3 Posted July 22, 2018 I use the WATE with my SL. I'm not a landscape nor a architectural photographer but I like to pack a UWA lens when I travel. As great as the 16-35 is, it's a rather large lens making it hard to justify lugging around for such a limited use. YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted July 22, 2018 Share #4 Posted July 22, 2018 Below is my opinion, WATE SL16-35 Size Compact DSLR Lens equil Functionality Manual focus Autofocus Non weather seal Weather seal Cannot accept std filters Same as 24-90 filter size of 82mm Long term value Mechanical, keeps value Electric motor, electric circuity,..limited life Image quality Great M lens Extraordinary great SL lens Coat M lens prices second most expensive SL lens (just below 90-280) I have the 16-35mm. It is certainly a lens I'll keep. I'll still get the WATE for usage on my M10 when the opportunity comes. Just no hurry. Actually WATE can accept standard E67 filters via filter adaptor, Leica code 14473. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 22, 2018 Share #5 Posted July 22, 2018 Leica's technical data sheet for the WATE reveals a lot of rectilinear distortion at 16mm (3% barrel (fisheye), somewhat corrected at the corners - classic retrofocus "moustache" type.) Reducing to 1.5% at 21mm. Far more than the C/V 15mm prime lens. Probably not a great lens for architecture pictures, where anything over 0.5% becomes rather noticeable. Pretty good corner sharpness though, and less vignetting than, say, a true wideangle like the 15mm M-mount Super-Angulons of yore, or the compact V.1/2 Voigtlander 15. Leica has not yet published distortion diagrams for the 16-35 SL lens, just MTF graphs. For what it's worth, the SL lens MTF is generally higher across the board in the focal lengths both lenses share, although the WATE tends to improve corner sharpness more with stopping down, to equalize that somewhat. From the 16-35 pictures I'm seeing, the rectilinear distortion (straight lines rendered curved - not to be confused with tilted straight lines from not keeping the camera level) is very low. https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/leica_super-vario-elmar_sl_16_35mm_f3_5_4_5_asph_photos 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted July 22, 2018 Share #6 Posted July 22, 2018 Key differences are focal length range and bulk. I imagine that Lightroom will correct both lenses’ distortion adequately. I imagine that the 16-35 will suffer a bit less from CA, but have no evidence either way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted July 22, 2018 Share #7 Posted July 22, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) In practice, due to the baked in profile, the 16-35mm lens has effectively Zero distortion at all focal lengths, so no charts are necessary. Cue: posts about the iniquity of digital, rather than optical, correction. Of course Photoshop and related software has lens profile correction for distortion but it is optional and could not provide the comprehensive set of corrections required by a variable focal-length lens. The native distortion of Leica M wide angle lenses is actually quite visible in many circumstances - I have used and/or owned many of them. I'm delighted with the SL 16-35mm, no Distortion, no Vigneting, no Chromatic Aberrations. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted July 22, 2018 Share #8 Posted July 22, 2018 The difference between the WATE and the SL 16-35 is the difference between the M and the SL. One is small, exceptionally well made, can take magnificent pictures, but is limited by the rangefinder format. The other is large, exceptionally well made, can take exceptional pictures and is not limited by the rangefinder format. I have loved my WATE, but on the SL, the native lens is as much a gem as the other native lenses. Love it. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted July 23, 2018 Share #9 Posted July 23, 2018 Actually WATE can accept standard E67 filters via filter adaptor, Leica code 14473. Yes, but I had the same experience having to do DIY blocking out the openings of the adapter as in for my M21 Summilux. As for the SL lenses, I can share filters with my 24-90. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted July 23, 2018 Share #10 Posted July 23, 2018 And the WATE shares the same E67 filters as the SL Summicrons 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted July 23, 2018 Share #11 Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) And the WATE shares the same E67 filters as the SL Summicrons Filter size wise you’re correct.The sets of my Singray filters are mostly grad nds, polirizer, nds and color cast filters for landscape applications. Yes the SL75 can be used for landscape shoots but the shallow DOF would be a waste which the 24-90 can cover, so that leaves the SL75 and M50Noc for my portrait shoots which I seldom use filters. Only on occasions which my current SF60 off camera flashes do not have sufficient power for me to shoot at shutter speeds exceeding 1/3200 sec I would slap on an ND filter to lower the shutter speed in out door off camera flash shoots for me to keep the aperture wide at F2 on my SL75 lens. Edited July 23, 2018 by sillbeers15 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 23, 2018 Share #12 Posted July 23, 2018 I have used the WATE extensively for landscape photography on the SL, but hardly ever on my M's when I had them. Now I have the 16-35 SL I have no hesitation in leaving the WATE behind...... Do not underestimate the benefits of having a unified system with the same filter sizes and methodology of use ..... fiddling about pre-dawn in limited light and rapidly changing conditions can be difficult and anything that keeps it simple and consistent is a godsend. Having multiple adapters is a recipe for trouble. I'll happily carry the extra 500g for the benefits of an AF auto aperture 16-35mm zoom lens with the same filter size as all my other lenses ..... 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted July 23, 2018 Share #13 Posted July 23, 2018 Filter size wise you’re correct. The sets of my Singray filters are mostly grad nds, polirizer, nds and color cast filters for landscape applications. Yes the SL75 can be used for landscape shoots but the shallow DOF would be a waste which the 24-90 can cover, so that leaves the SL75 and M50Noc for my portrait shoots which I seldom use filters. Only on occasions which my current SF60 off camera flashes do not have sufficient power for me to shoot at shutter speeds exceeding 1/3200 sec I would slap on an ND filter to lower the shutter speed in out door off camera flash shoots for me to keep the aperture wide at F2 on my SL75 lens. True, there are currently 4 SL lenses that use E87 filters, but by year's end there will be 4 SL lenses that use E67 filters. So there is no clear advantage for either filter size, and it boils down to your preference of shooting with zooms or primes. I prefer the latter thus making the WATE a better choice 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 23, 2018 Share #14 Posted July 23, 2018 True, there are currently 4 SL lenses that use E87 filters, but by year's end there will be 4 SL lenses that use E67 filters. So there is no clear advantage for either filter size, and it boils down to your preference of shooting with zooms or primes. I prefer the latter thus making the WATE a better choice For landscape photography primes are very limiting ..... and with the quality of Leica zooms offer no advantage at all apart from some size and weight savings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted July 23, 2018 Share #15 Posted July 23, 2018 For landscape photography primes are very limiting ..... and with the quality of Leica zooms offer no advantage at all apart from some size and weight savings. Well said. Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted July 23, 2018 Share #16 Posted July 23, 2018 For landscape photography primes are very limiting ..... and with the quality of Leica zooms offer no advantage at all apart from some size and weight savings. That's a bit hyperbolic in my opinion as landscapes represent only a fraction of wide-angle photography. The Summicron's offer an extra 1.5-2 stops of light gathering over the 24-90, which is a great lens for a zoom but no match for SL-primes which are comparable to the Zeiss Otus in IQ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted July 23, 2018 Share #17 Posted July 23, 2018 I’m curious about the difference in IQ of the 16-35 and the 24-90 from the 24-35 range at the same aperture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted July 23, 2018 Share #18 Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) For me the 16-35 would be more usefull if it was f2.8 constant. That way it would be a landscape lens but also a good lens for people inside (rooms). Right now my feeling is I am better served with 24-90 which is faster and has IS + 21mm SEM. But I can see for people who often shoot the 16-24mm range the 16-35 a nice and solid option. Problem with SL-lenses is they are quite big and heavy so that you can not carry many of them at the same time. Edited July 23, 2018 by tom0511 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhippingPost Posted July 23, 2018 Share #19 Posted July 23, 2018 I use my digital and film M's more than I use my SL. So for me the WATE is the practical choice. While not up to the caliber of the 16-35SL (based on the published MTF's), the WATE performs surprisingly well on the SL. I'm so pleased with the images I'm getting from the WATE/SL combo that it has actually dampened my desire to get the 16-35SL. For now, that is. The SL2 might change my mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 23, 2018 Share #20 Posted July 23, 2018 That's a bit hyperbolic in my opinion as landscapes represent only a fraction of wide-angle photography. The Summicron's offer an extra 1.5-2 stops of light gathering over the 24-90, which is a great lens for a zoom but no match for SL-primes which are comparable to the Zeiss Otus in IQ. The extra stops are negated by OIS on the zooms........ and if you are using a tripod it is all academic anyway ..... plus with landscape to are usually stopping down to f11 or more to get more DOF. I know it's a matter of semantics, but 'landscape photography' in my book is completely different to travel and general photography .... and the OP specifically mentioned 'landscape' in his questions .... The WATE works fine, but having used the 16-35 for the last 3 months the WATE is living in the safe worrying about eBay ...... ps. actually it's too good (and expensive) a lens to part with ... and will remain part of a small number of M and R lenses that I will never sell..... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.