Some questions about the WATE

[Julius Bjornsson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there,

 

I just came from trying the WATE on my M8, and must say that it is a beautiful lens and also that the universal finder that comes with it is bulky, and very inconvenient. But there are two things I do not understand about this lens.

 

1. When the lens is put on the M8 it puts up the frame lines for 28/90 in the viewfinder. I cannot understand why it does not show the lines for 21/35, which would be convenient, at least for shooting at 21 mm with the lens.

 

2. How do you put filters on the lens? There is no thread for that and using it without IR cut filters is probably not adequate. How do you solve this?

 

Any answers greatly appreciated.

 

JKB

[Advertisement]

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

[gwelland]

1) It's a moot point - you may as well use the edges of the full viewfinder to approximate.

 

2) For filters you have a couple of options. Leica has a 67mm filter ring which is almost, but not quite, as ugly as the Frankenfinder.

 

John Milich has a much more elegant filter assembly that screws on between the lens hood and lens body to mount a 49mm UV/IR filter. Do a search of the forum and you'll see plenty of references to it. The adapter is extremely well made and looks more like Leica made it than the Leica 67mm monstrosity.

[jquimby]

Hi there,

 

I just came from trying the WATE on my M8, and must say that it is a beautiful lens and also that the universal finder that comes with it is bulky, and very inconvenient. But there are two things I do not understand about this lens.

 

1. When the lens is put on the M8 it puts up the frame lines for 28/90 in the viewfinder. I cannot understand why it does not show the lines for 21/35, which would be convenient, at least for shooting at 21 mm with the lens.

 

2. How do you put filters on the lens? There is no thread for that and using it without IR cut filters is probably not adequate. How do you solve this?

 

Any answers greatly appreciated.

 

JKB

 

Question 1: because there are no frame lines for 21mm the frame lines are for 24/35 and that is already taking into account the field of view crop of 1.33 so the frames are accurate for the 24mm Elmarit when on the M8

 

Question 2: Two options, either way you need to unscrew the hood from the front of the lens. The Leica solution is the least elegant and involves using a much larger filter and a step up ring type thing. The better option is the homegrown forum solution which was designed and manufactured by forum members. Go here:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/20384-wate-filtered.html

 

and then go here:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/26403-removing-filter-glass-use-milich-wate.html

 

 

 

here is what the first option looks like ( the one on the left the lens on the right is the Zeiss 15mm Distagon I believe:

 

 

and the second homegrown forum option:

 

 

hope that helps

[Julius Bjornsson]

Thanks very much, my mistake, of course the widest lines in the camera are for 24 mm. Stupid of me, should have remembered that.

 

The homegrown solution for the filters looks very interesting and I will certainly look into that if I manage to find the funds for the lens itself.

 

One other thing btw, how do you all use the Universal viewfinder. I understand the need for selecting the correct framelines in the finder, but the other setting I do not quite get. It appears to do nothing but move the framelies up and down, and I expect that that is parallax correction. Is this correct? Is this the only function of the second setting i.e. the one in the back?

 

And was there not available a smaller finder with just the framelines for 16-18-21? I have been looking for that, but can´t find it now. I think the Universal thing looks horrible and adds a lot of bulk to the camera.

And while I am at it, one question more. I have also been considering the MATE but have not been able to try one (very hard to find). Does that lens automatically change the framelines in the M8 viewfinder when you change between 28-35-50.

[jquimby]

Thanks very much, my mistake, of course the widest lines in the camera are for 24 mm. Stupid of me, should have remembered that.

 

The homegrown solution for the filters looks very interesting and I will certainly look into that if I manage to find the funds for the lens itself.

 

One other thing btw, how do you all use the Universal viewfinder. I understand the need for selecting the correct framelines in the finder, but the other setting I do not quite get. It appears to do nothing but move the framelies up and down, and I expect that that is parallax correction. Is this correct? Is this the only function of the second setting i.e. the one in the back?

 

And was there not available a smaller finder with just the framelines for 16-18-21? I have been looking for that, but don´t find it now. I think the Universal thing looks horrible and adds a lot of bulk to the camera.

 

Yes the second dial is parallax correction. Leica does sell an external 21-24-28 view finder which when you mount a 16-18-21 tri-elmar on the 1.33 crop sensor M8 it gives you a, surprising, field of view of 21-24-28 so you can use that one for framing. I haven't used that view finder so no first hand experience, but reports of really bad distortion have been reported enough times to add credibility to that claim. Zeiss and CV make really good view finders in that range so that may be an option. Another option is forget the viewfinder, set it to 16mm and f/8 or smaller, guess at the distance and you will find something in focus!!

[jquimby]

And while I am at it, one question more. I have also been considering the MATE but have not been able to try one (very hard to find). Does that lens automatically change the framelines in the M8 viewfinder when you change between 28-35-50.

 

MATE has been discontinued so availability is random and dwindling at best. The MATE does bring up the corresponding bright lines as the focal length changes.

[gwelland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And while I am at it, one question more. I have also been considering the MATE but have not been able to try one (very hard to find). Does that lens automatically change the framelines in the M8 viewfinder when you change between 28-35-50.

 

Yes - with the MATE the framelines move automatically when you shift the focal length. If it's coded then you should also get the correct EXIF data and any UV/IR corrections too.

[jlm]

which begs the question:

was including the frameline selector postion as a coding element entirely based on using the varaible frameline MATE, a lens now discontinued?

[sean_reid]

Hi John,

 

Probably not...long term, including the frame line selector position in the coding recipe gives, Leica, mathematically, more possible coding combinations.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[luigi bertolotti]

I tested the 21-24-28 Viewfinder (not in field.. at a shop) and it seemed to me not so bad... a little distortion effect, but clear, bright, framing good and dimension acceptable expecially versus the horribly bulk (and inelegant) WATE dedicated.

And I remember that in economical terms (at least at Italy price list when I looked at) there is a strange trick : the 21-24-28 costs about 50% of the WATEfinder in itself, but the difference in price between WATE-with-finder and WATE-without-finder is exactly the price of the 21-24-28. So you have the dimensions advantage, but nothing significant in total money...

And, for myself, I continue to think that the WATE is a lens that is almost impossible I'll think to buy...even if some Las Vegas style event should occur on me... the price differential with CV15 is astonishing... ok it's zoom... but I have a 21 Asph...; such an amount of money for such a little more, makes me think that there would be surely some better way to spend it, even on lenses...

[jquimby]

And, for myself, I continue to think that the WATE is a lens that is almost impossible I'll think to buy...even if some Las Vegas style event should occur on me... the price differential with CV15 is astonishing... ok it's zoom... but I have a 21 Asph...; such an amount of money for such a little more, makes me think that there would be surely some better way to spend it, even on lenses...

 

I completely agree, when I consider the usefulness of the WATE it was hard to justify such price for what is essentially a 21-24-28 f/4. Now, for whatever reason, stick in a 36x24mm digital sensor inside an M and i have no problem paying that kind of money for an actual FOV of 16-18-21 f/4. Not sure why, but it makes sense for some reason to me... granted they could have simply made it a 16mm f/4 and I would have been just as happy.

[Olsen]

I have both the WATE w/frankenfinder and the Voigtländer 15 mm. The latter w/o filter or coding, but with both a 15 mm and a 21 mm Voitländer viewfinder. There is a marked difference between the two lenses.

 

Like the rangefinder coupling on the WATE which makes it more reliable. I use glasses and find the range figures on the Voigtländer too small to see. This makes the WATE far more reliable and intuitive to use. I see far more soft corners on my Voigtländer than Sean Reid does on his test. Having conducted some test at my livingroom I find the WATE 'exceptionally good' and far better at reproducing high contrast silverware and glasses. Particularly if they are placed out in the corners of the picture.

 

The advantage of the Voigtländer is that it makes the M8 look more innocent and people seem to be less aware of the photographer. Except for that it is cheap, light and compact. I agree that the price difference is rediculous.

[tom0511]

For me the best solution is the Ricoh GRD 21-28 mm finder. Works pretty good, less distorsion and brighter than the Leica universal finder (which sits in my shelve)

[garyvot]

The best thing about the Universal Finder is that it offers real framelines. The alternative Leica 21-28 finder feels like using a Contax G (usable, but different). That said, the UWAF is a bit ungainly, and this did influence my decision against the WATE.

 

I looked into the WATE, but was put off by the huge finder, and by the need to set the focal length manually on the camera for proper lens correction when shooting with IR filters (a necessity with such a wide lens). I'm convinced I will forget to set it when shooting quickly, and the camera will write the wrong correction curve to the DNG (and the wrong focal length to the Exif), which will mean more of a headache in post. If Leica could make it work like the MATE (engage the camera's framelines) then all would be copacetic.

[tom0511]

The best thing about the Universal Finder is that it offers real framelines. The alternative Leica 21-28 finder feels like using a Contax G (usable, but different). That said, the UWAF is a bit ungainly, and this did influence my decision against the WATE.

 

I looked into the WATE, but was put off by the huge finder, and by the need to set the focal length manually on the camera for proper lens correction when shooting with IR filters (a necessity with such a wide lens). I'm convinced I will forget to set it when shooting quickly, and the camera will write the wrong correction curve to the DNG (and the wrong focal length to the Exif), which will mean more of a headache in post. If Leica could make it work like the MATE (engage the camera's framelines) then all would be copacetic.

 

I still think its faster to change focal length with the wate and change the value for the correction vs switching lenses.

[garyvot]

I still think its faster to change focal length with the wate and change the value for the correction vs switching lenses.

 

Yes, no doubt. And I do think the WATE is a lovely lens (the one I tried met every expectation of a Leica lens).

 

My decision was more a reflection on me: it wasn't the bother of changing the menu, but rather the likelyhood that I would forget to do so.