WATE or SEM21 on SL2

[DrM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

The SL21 will hint the market in 2021, and I found the 16-35 (leica,panasonic, or the uwa zoom by Sigma) too heavy. So, I’m looking for a 21mm lens, SEM21 or the WATE would do the job. Aperature 3.4 vs 4 is not a big difference, so what is the main difference besides getting the 16 and 18 for “free” on the WATE (and the price)? Distortion/vignetting? Anyone with experience on the SL2?

Best regards,

Marc

[james.liam]

Boils down to whether you need the flexibility of 16-20 mm too, or prefer the superlative performance of the 21SEM. The WATE is fantastic but @ 21mm not the equal of the SEM.

BTW, you can buy a 2nd-hand 21SEM plus a new CV 4,5/15 v.III for less than the WATE.

Edited May 11, 2020 by james.liam

[hillavoider]

or this and buy a car/holiday with the change: Panasonic Lumix S Pro 16-35mm f/4 Lens 

[MarkP]

9 hours ago, james.liam said:

The WATE is fantastic but @ 21mm not the equal of the SEM.

Agreed

[chasdfg]

5 hours ago, hillavoider said:

or this and buy a car/holiday with the change: Panasonic Lumix S Pro 16-35mm f/4 Lens 

+1 
and only 100g heavier than the 21SEM with M-L adapter
 

[Photoworks]

I have tested the Wate in a store on the SL and it was excellent . some quality then on an M body. With WATE you can use it in both M and SL cameras.

I think most cameras apply corrections for distortion on vignetting on wide angle lenses.

The WATE on an SL camera can be used like a zoom, no need to stick with 16-18-21mm

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

56 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

The WATE on an SL camera can be used like a zoom, no need to stick with 16-18-21mm

Functions the same way on an M. Slap a Viso 020 and, voila!

[setuporg]

Have you considered the Voigtlander Ultron 1:1.8/21mm?  Excellent rendering, built like a tank.

[hillavoider]

4 hours ago, setuporg said:

Have you considered the Voigtlander Ultron 1:1.8/21mm?  Excellent rendering, built like a tank.

I agree I have that lens, but they now have a 1.4 version, which I really shouldn't get as well dammit https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/21-mm-114-nokton-aspherical/?lang=en

[setuporg]

Why did I suggest mine only to learn that they now have the 1.4 in the M mount!  (Checks B&H, in stock...:)

[sillbeers15]

If you have seen the IQ on sharpness, micro contrast and color rendering of the SL16-35 produced out of the SL2, no considerations of weight and size matters anymore. I do not even bother mounting my M21 Summilux on my SL2.

[bags27]

+1 I don't own an SL/SL2 or any L lenses. But as a potential owner, I follow these threads regularly. Unquestionably, for me, the most exciting renderings are with the 16-35. Even compared to the APO primes, to my eye that lens more closely approaches MF imagery.

[DrM]

7 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

If you have seen the IQ on sharpness, micro contrast and color rendering of the SL16-35 produced out of the SL2, no considerations of weight and size matters anymore. I do not even bother mounting my M21 Summilux on my SL2.

Do you have an example of the difference? 
BR

Marc

[sillbeers15]

12 hours ago, DrM said:

Do you have an example of the difference? 
BR

Marc

No. I do not do pic to pic comparisons. And I own and keep both M & SL system, therefore I deliberately avoid owning same focal length lenses on both. On the SL system, I use it for its AF & Zoom lenses speed and convenience with no less pics IQ.  I started shooting Leica with M9 and M lenses. I still love the M system and feel more connected to it. The M system produces brilliant pics IQ, but the SL / SL2 with SL glasses are simply at a different level. Even no pic to pic comparison of actual scene, the IQ and distortion level is evident to the eye.

[o2mpx]

Followup question:

After mounting a 6bit coded lens, camera calls for selecting one of the 3 focal lengths available

However,  when focal length is changed, should the lens profile also be changed to match the new focal length selected?

Thank you. 

[BernardC]

On 7/17/2020 at 8:15 PM, o2mpx said:

After mounting a 6bit coded lens, camera calls for selecting one of the 3 focal lengths available

However,  when focal length is changed, should the lens profile also be changed to match the new focal length selected?

I presume you are talking about the WATE (16-18-21). I don't think it will make a difference in the way that your images are processed by Lightroom (or internally for JPEG). The WATE doesn't need much correction, people find that it can even be shot on non-Leica cameras as-is. The only significant difference will be the focal length recorded in the EXIF data, which may or may not be significant to you.

[Jared]

I have owned both the WATE and the SEM (as well as the 21mm Summilux) and used them on an SL as well as an M10.  Never tried any of them on an SL2 but expect the SL experience to be similar.

If you are discussing landscape use or architecture, you will find the SEM is marginally better at f/8 but that differences are almost undetectable by f/11. That’s resolution and contrast. With respect to distortion, the SEM has a sizable advantage.  I wouldn’t recommend the WATE for architecture work (though the lens profiles do a decent job of addressing distortion, they aren’t perfect).

Honestly, for landscapes you would only be able to tell the difference with careful comparison, and even then only in the corners.  The SEM is better. If you are going to shoot much with either lens wide open, the SEM is better—enough to matter in the real world.  But the only times I shot either wide open were low light situations without a tripod. 

End result?  For a landscape photographer  the SEM is the better lens optically, but the improvements are only likely to be material at f/5.6 and faster and those apertures aren’t commonly used in landscape work.  The extra flexibility of the zoom may well be worth the slight degradation in performance wide open. I preferred the WATE for landscapes. For architecture? The SEM is much better due to its lower distortion.  If you NEED the speed—and only if you need the speed—the Lux is the best choice.  I used mine for Milky Way shots at f/2.  The 16-35 SL zoom is by far the best of the bunch, but is quite a bit larger.  Personally, Inwould recommend the 16-35 despite the bulk. The SL2 just isn’t meant to be a compact, light camera.  If that’s what I was after, I’d find a way to make the Q2 work instead.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Jared

[o2mpx]

As a followup, did you by chance notice if the WATE edge or corner results are different if the profile setting was matching chosen shooting focal length?

It’ll be a bit inconvenient if changing the shooting focal length needed a profile change on the SL before shooting every time.

[Jared]

2 hours ago, o2mpx said:

As a followup, did you by chance notice if the WATE edge or corner results are different if the profile setting was matching chosen shooting focal length?

It’ll be a bit inconvenient if changing the shooting focal length needed a profile change on the SL before shooting every time.

The distortion correction is different depending on the focal length.  Also, vignetting correction slightly different. It’s best to choose the correct profile, but for most pics you can leave it alone.  Choosing after the fact in Lightroom works fine, too, in case you forget to pick the right value when you first put the lens on.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Jared

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[o2mpx]

Great to know. Thank you. 
 

Somewhat of a related note as I purchased a MATE V2 non 6bit and proceeded to get coding done but in hindsight, given the need to change profiles when focal length was changed, could have saved some money and left it as non 6bit.