WATE owners - How happy are you with it on your M8 for real life conditions?

[AGeoJO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Currently, I am using my 21mm Elmarit ASPH quite a bit for my WA need and from time to time, when I feel the need for a more wider view, I put my (filterless) CV 15mm on and I am really happy with the setup. My discounted WATE finally arrived and now I have to make a decision whether to keep the WATE and sell the other two or just keep the two and sell the WATE. I read Sean's review and I believe that I cannot go wrong image quality-wise either way. However, I would like to hear the hands-on experience of people that go for the WATE or the prime lens option. Would you mind sharing that here, please? Thank you.

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

I also have not decided yet. The workflow of the WATE is a PITA, the finder is wonderful though, but overall, the effort is just really high. If the CV15 was an f/4 and as sharp wide-open as the WATE it would be case closed, but as it is, I still can't decide. The wildcard is that the CV15 still has a poor workflow due to the need to select 16mm (or 18mm) if used coded with an IR filter. I am considering selling the WATE and finder and using the CV15 uncoded with a finder, and picking up a 21 Elmarit pre- or ASPH.

[dspeltz]

I have them both and will keep both. When I want ultra-light I carry the CV and 35. it is a superb street combo (CV and 24 or 28 on the M8). When I want flexiblitly and assured quality for landscapes, I replace the CV with the WATE.

 

The CV is inexpensive, relatively, thus I can justify both. I prefer the WATE on landscapes. I really prefer the CV in the street.

 

David

[marknorton]

I'm selling my CV15 at some point, I like the WATE.

[johnbuckley]

I find the WATE is practical and with the Frankenfinder on, is remarkably versatile. Believe it or not, it even works for shots that involve movement (See below.) I have found myself using all three lengths, and been glad to have each of them. It is also a very sharp lens.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[AGeoJO]

Thank you for your input, guys.

 

I know I can't afford using both setups and to a certain degree, I like the idea of using just a single lens that will cover that focal length range and functions as a semi-zoom. In addition, it is more in the spirit of Leica's intention of providing the lens at a discount to put up with the growing pains of the M8 (yeah, right ). Come to think of it, I don't think I have shot the 21mm at f/2.8..... At this point, I am leaning more towards selling the 21mm ASPH and CV15 to recoupe my money for the WATE.

[Olsen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for your input, guys.

 

At this point, I am leaning more towards selling the 21mm ASPH and CV15 to recoupe my money for the WATE.

 

I think you shall do just that. With the WATE you get coding and a filter system included (or it is easier to include). The WATE will be the most suitable lense for just any digital rangefinder (M8, M9 etc) that we will be seeing in forseeable future. The M8 and WATE is probably one of the very best wide angle/digital camera-combo's around. It is the Voigtländer quite superior.

 

I have a WATE, but have later bought a Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5 Super Wide Heliar Ashp. 2.hand and use it without filters or coded adapter. I have also bought a 2.hand Voigtländer 21 mm viewfinder which is excellent to use with both WATE and the Heliar. The Heliar gives the M8 an 'innocent look' which is suitable in many instances. While the WATE makes the M8 look quite 'proffesional'. But optically, the WATE is quite superior. Particularly when you don't have a coded adapter and IR/UV filter on the Heliar, which is my situation.

[kidigital]

Hi Joshua,

 

I've just gone through the same decision-making process with the WATE and 21/2.8 ASPH. After spending time with both lenses over the past few months, I find that I prefer the WATE. To my eyes, I like the overall sharpness, contrast and colors that I get with the lens compared to the 21/2.8. I no longer find it a chore to enter in the proper focal length ... it takes just a few seconds. On the other hand, while I do like the universal finder, I find that I am too lazy to use it in most instances. I'm happy using my CV21mm viewfinder with a little guess-work.

 

I also have the CV12 and 15, but do not use either since the WATE has arrived. Again, I much prefer the colors and contrast of the WATE over the CV lenses.

 

I currently have the 21 for sale as it is hard to justify having both when there are a few other lenses that I'd like to try.

 

Kurt

[KJB]

Hi Joshua,

 

I've just gone through the same decision-making process with the WATE and 21/2.8 ASPH. After spending time with both lenses over the past few months, I find that I prefer the WATE. To my eyes, I like the overall sharpness, contrast and colors that I get with the lens compared to the 21/2.8. I no longer find it a chore to enter in the proper focal length ... it takes just a few seconds. On the other hand, while I do like the universal finder, I find that I am too lazy to use it in most instances. I'm happy using my CV21mm viewfinder with a little guess-work.

 

I also have the CV12 and 15, but do not use either since the WATE has arrived. Again, I much prefer the colors and contrast of the WATE over the CV lenses.

 

I currently have the 21 for sale as it is hard to justify having both when there are a few other lenses that I'd like to try.

 

Kurt

 

Kurt,

Do you ever worry about ever going back and needing a fast wide again? I'm going through the same dillema with my 21asph and WATE on order...

Ken

[kidigital]

Ken,

 

That's a good question. I did think about that (especially as I live in the soon to be dark northern latitudes and I'm not fond of flash.) The 21 is excellent wide open, but I just don't use a wide angle lens wide-open often enough to negate the differences that I see in image quality I get with the WATE. I'll use the WATE, the 28 cron and my feet over the winter months.

 

Kurt

[vanhulsenbeek]

I feel comfortable with the WATE. I find the conscious choice between 16-21 mm useful and the quality of the pictures beyond reproach.

 

Yes, I would like it to have a bigger opening, but I understand that would bloat it up like a Canon 16-35 II. Useless on a M8.

 

The WATE's results translate effortlessly into panoramas, also a proof of its quality.

See an example here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/34162-indonesian-volcano-panorama.html

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I really like having the WATE on travel trips it really is handy but even at home on a location shoot or a planned shooting with tripod and ligyts it really does a very very nice job. i will say i use all three focal lengths pretty equally too which surprised me.

[AGeoJO]

Hello guys,

Thank you very much for your helpful input which practically reinforces my inclination towards the WATE. If I could afford it, I would keep my 21mm Elmarit that I really enjoy using but alas.... I will go ahead order a filter adapter from JLM and wait until the 49mm UV/IR cut filter from Leica is available (what's up with the availability of that filter, Leica?) before I put my 21mm Elmarit for sale. By so doing, I won't also be competing with Kurt .

 

Again, thank you,

Joshua

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Has anyone bought or able to buy the Zeiss 18mm yet , curious about it's performance

[Jack MacDonough]

I haven't used the 21 2.8 since the WATE arrived. I never would take the 21 on a trip vs the WATE. But I won't sell the 21 for awhile since I have always regretted the lenses I have sold (even when I wanted the money)

The finder is a real plus with the bubble level. I am using this for architecture, and I can now shoot without a tripod with level. It has allowed me to put the Canon 24 tilt shift to the side, especially since the 24 has such challenging corners.

I too am surprised how often I use the full range of the lens since I has assumed I would only use it for the 16mm setting.

So sell your 21. If you later regret it, maybe I can sell you mine by then.