WATE vs SEM 18mm

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you have a WATE, why would you want a SEM 18mm?

A+

[Advertisement]

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

[SiggiGun]

Small size

[derleicaman]

When I acquired my WATE, I sold my 18/4 Zeiss. I thought having the 18 was redundant. I sold my 21/2.8 ASPH for the same reason. I kept my 21/4 CV lens in case I wanted a dedicated 21. It is really quite good and very compact.

Ideally I would never sell an M lens, but you can’t keep everything!

[ckuwajima]

I kind of went the other way around.

My Super-Angulon 21/3.4 - which coupled superbly with my M4 - would not meter without Live View and would require post-processing for newly bought M10. Therefore it made sense to get a WATE instead of a SEM 21.

Back to OP question, size & weight would be one excellent reason, specially if WATE is used with the frankenfinder.

The corolally is that there are infinite ways to accumulate lenses 🙂

[setuporg]

I guess I wonder if there's any "special look" for SEM vs the WATE.  Their speed is pretty close, 3.8 vs 4, and the WATE is hailed as a great lens, so I wonder what am I missing...

[derleicaman]

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

I guess I wonder if there's any "special look" for SEM vs the WATE.  Their speed is pretty close, 3.8 vs 4, and the WATE is hailed as a great lens, so I wonder what am I missing...

Not sure about a special look for the SEM. According to Tom Abrahamsson, the SEM is the best 21 Leica has ever made. Others swear by the old SA 21/3.4. I cut my teeth on my dad’s Super Angulon 21/4 which I still have, but can’t use on the M10. I had the 21 Elmarit, and then the 21/2.8 ASPH for a brief time. The WATE at 21 is a better performer than either one of those lenses.

The WATE is an incredible lens, and I have used it extensively while traveling, getting excellent results. It is a very versatile tool, especially for interior architecture. Live View is a game changer with it for framing while shooting quick. Never shot with the 21 SEM, so I can’t directly compare. I do have the 24 Elmar, which I love and it works well with the WATE. I owned the original 24 Elmarit when it first came out, but the 24 Elmar kicks it’s ass in a smaller package.

[derleicaman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

I guess I wonder if there's any "special look" for SEM vs the WATE.  Their speed is pretty close, 3.8 vs 4, and the WATE is hailed as a great lens, so I wonder what am I missing...

Forgot we were talking about the 18 SEM! I tested the 18 SEM against the Zeiss 18/4 ZM, and found them to be virtually identical. I wrote an article on the 18 SEM for the LHSA Viewfinder. Again, when I got the WATE, I sold the 18 as it didn’t give me anything the WATE couldn’t do.

[Del-Uks]

I always thought fast primes like Lux 35 and Lux 50 (and anything between) was the only way to go when you shoot with a Leica M... that was before I had the chance to get a WATE for a good price : I will never sell this one !

Now... should I care for the SEM 18 ?

I don’t think so. 

[luigi bertolotti]

22 hours ago, setuporg said:

If you have a WATE, why would you want a SEM 18mm?

A+

Ergonomics related mainly with the camera you use : I mean, if you use a M with EVF, and are well accustomed to frame with it, no reason to switch from WATE to SEM : the multifocal facility (btw... WATE is a "real zoom" iirc) is a definite plus and IQ si probably very comparable.

If your camera does not support EVF, or you don't like to use it, things are quite different : a (Leica) photographer well experienced with the usage of strong WAs with accessory OVF, surely does prefer to have its 18 with its VF and compose the scene with it, than playing with a big "zooming" VF.. set the lens accordingly etc...

[Cobram]

4 hours ago, derleicaman said:

Not sure about a special look for the SEM. According to Tom Abrahamsson, the SEM is the best 21 Leica has ever made. Others swear by the old SA 21/3.4. I cut my teeth on my dad’s Super Angulon 21/4 which I still have, but can’t use on the M10. I had the 21 Elmarit, and then the 21/2.8 ASPH for a brief time. The WATE at 21 is a better performer than either one of those lenses.

The WATE is an incredible lens, and I have used it extensively while traveling, getting excellent results. It is a very versatile tool, especially for interior architecture. Live View is a game changer with it for framing while shooting quick. Never shot with the 21 SEM, so I can’t directly compare. I do have the 24 Elmar, which I love and it works well with the WATE. I owned the original 24 Elmarit when it first came out, but the 24 Elmar kicks it’s ass in a smaller package.

 

4 hours ago, derleicaman said:

Forgot we were talking about the 18 SEM! I tested the 18 SEM against the Zeiss 18/4 ZM, and found them to be virtually identical. I wrote an article on the 18 SEM for the LHSA Viewfinder. Again, when I got the WATE, I sold the 18 as it didn’t give me anything the WATE couldn’t do.

Dear Derleicaman,

Yes you are right, topic is related to WATE - SEM battle. But anyway: is there really a big difference between Elmarit ASPH vs Elmar 24 regarding rendering, sharpness,..., except size?

[Jean-Michel]

Over a year ago I had the choice of getting a WATE or a 21 mm SEM,  and selling a 21 VC. Finally chose the WATE, attracted by the 16 mm  possibilities. Means that I must use it with my M-P and not M9. I find that it works best for me to focus using the rangefinder and frame with the EVF — takes me back to Speed Graphic days!  The lens is not too large, and the EVF is not much larger than an auxiliary finder.