The wide angle issue

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the problem with a fast 15/16 is likely to be the size of the thing, and how much of the viewfinder it obscures

 

 

As long as it doesn't obscure the rangefinder patch, I don't see the problem. A 15mm or 16mm lens would be using an external finder.

 

As an owner of a WATE, I don't seem to be bothered by a lot of the things others are worried about. It is a small lens, not much bigger than the 21mm APH. It also has the Leica look and Leica color, which the Voitlander and Zeiss lenses don't offer.

 

Robert

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

I'd bet 250 Euros they'll NOT make a FF RF Leica in the next 3 years... I think more of bigger sensors if they'll make something in the DSLR line... a traditional FF or an astonishing square 36x36 in the range of 25 MP... R lenses compatible...

 

I think the sensor choice for the R10 will give us some pointers, though I doubt it will be as big as 36*36 - the image circle would then be bigger than that supported by Leica-R lenses, 43.27mm.

[sean_reid]

I currrently own the CV15, which is only adequate as a lens in comparison with a Leica lens. If you look at images from this lens and from the WATE, you can see that the WATE is a superior lens.

 

However, it is a zoom lens. We know that a prime lens will produce better images than a zoom.

 

I'd like to see Leica make something (FAST) in the 15mm area. There is a 15mm R-lens at f2.8. Should be a piece of cake for the gnomes from Solms.

 

Hi Bill,

 

Superior in which way? I think the two real differences between those lenses are:

 

1) The WATE has higher contrast.

 

2) The WATE is RF coupled.

 

All else being equal pictures made with the WATE will be sharper than those made with the CV 15 simply because the former can be focused precisely. With a camera like the M8, in particular, that really can matter.

 

The Zeiss 18 and 21, of course, are both excellent lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[lct]

... I think the two real differences between those lenses are:

1) The WATE has higher contrast.

2) The WATE is RF coupled...

Hi Sean do you mean vignetting is not better with the wate?

[stunsworth]

A 15mm or 16mm lens would be using an external finder.

 

A good point that I missed <grin>.

 

I tried a WATE for a few frames in Berlin and was impressed with the image quality.

[Peter Branch]

An interesting discussion – how to sum it up?

 

Several contributors who have the WATE, especially those who bought one at the old price with a 30% discount, seem more than content. It is also interesting that there have been few references to lenses of shorter than 15/16 mm focal length, which corresponds, of course, to the shortest available Leica M lens in the film era of 21 mm.

 

Overall I would say that Leica have no need to fear developing additional wide angle lenses for the M8. There is clearly a gap in the current market which it seems is being filled with lenses from third parties. This is a pity because Leica needs the business.

 

Regarding the specifications and taking into account references to this topic in other threads there seem to be two main lines of thinking for lenses with focal length shorter than 24mm. The first would like faster lenses and the second lenses with very low distortion even if this means sacrificing maximum aperture. Each of these approaches seems to then divide between those who would use such a lens frequently and would be attracted to a premium lens and those who like to have such a lens in their bag but anticipate that it will not be used that often so the cost needs to be contained.

 

I see the argument for a 15/16mm rather than an 18mm because the difference is not that great and with care M8 files can be cropped quite successfully. My own vote would be for low distortion and accept f/4 or less.

 

One thing which has been raised a number of times is the ancillary view finder. I still have my simple 24mm Leica finder and don’t find any of the current Leica finders nearly so effective. I guess if Leica don’t pay attention to this we can always buy one of the excellent Zeiss finders, but it would again be a pity.

[martinb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The wide angle issue with the M8 is really disturbing for me.

Firstly, there are not any really fast wide angles. The 28mm ultron and summicron are ok, but they are only f/2 and not really wide at 37mm.

Secondly I find the whole coding, 6-bit, adapter and cyan situation very disturbing with the wide angles.

Thirdly, because of the crop factor you'll have to use larger lenses for the wides that block the finder to a higher degree.

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean do you mean vignetting is not better with the wate?

 

Hi LCT,

 

I'll have to look back at my own article and get back to you. I can't recall right off.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[wparsonsgisnet]

Hi Bill,

 

Superior in which way? I think the two real differences between those lenses are:

 

1) The WATE has higher contrast.

 

2) The WATE is RF coupled.

 

All else being equal pictures made with the WATE will be sharper than those made with the CV 15 simply because the former can be focused precisely. With a camera like the M8, in particular, that really can matter.

 

The Zeiss 18 and 21, of course, are both excellent lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, I refer specifically to images posted by Guy Mancuso. He has posted shots from both the CV15 and the WATE. His WATE images have more of the Leica character, in my view.

 

The (desirable) Leica character is what I describe as "rounder." I might also say "more of a sense of depth" or "more 3-dimensional."

 

Yes, they are also sharper.

 

Regards,

[robsteve]

Hi Sean do you mean vignetting is not better with the wate?

 

Coded and with a filter the WATE is quite a bit better than the 15mm in regards to vignetting. I don't think there is much at all.

 

Here is the WATE at 16mm. I don't see much if any vignette.

 

[adan]

Experiences vary - my 15mm C/V does extremely well with a filter and "Milich" coding. In fact I think it outdoes my pre-ASPH 21 except when I blow the focus, and pairs nicely with the 28 'cron in image color, contrast, etc. In fact, the 15 and 28 are the two lenses with which I can get "pseudo-6x6" resolution by cropping the image to a square.

 

The WATE suffers from a massive and kludgy filter implementation (both physically, and with the pause-to-select-focal-length-from-the-menu requirement), requires me to buy two focal lengths I don't need in order to get ONE focal length wider than 21mm, and is RELATIVELY large as M lenses go.

 

But from Leica's standpoint the WATE was a rational way to cover the wide-angle range as quickly as possible in introducing the cropped M8 (3 focal lengths, one optical design, one manufacturing setup - and they provided for both 21 and 24mm fans).

 

The hints are strong that there will be wider primes fairly soon (PMA in Feb. 08? - certainly before PK 08). I would guess a Summarit-class 18mm f/3.5, and ASPH-class 18 f/2.8 and 16 f/3.5, all conforming to a size much closer to a 21 ASPH than the Zeiss 15mm. (And, I suspect, a reintroduction of compact single-focal-length viewfinders for FOV 16, 18, 21, 24)

 

Followed by a 24mm f/2 ASPH - at a stratASPHeric price.

 

As to f/1.4 - well, study the Nikon/Canon 28/24 f/1.4s, allow 20% reduction in size for the M-mount, add back 10% to maintain Leica image quality - and they would still be godawful massive. And likely north of $7,000 each, given Leica's general requirement of doubling the price to increase aperture 1 stop. I don't think Leica could sell enough to make money.

 

We will see wider lenses LONG before we see a full-frame digital M, IMHO. I'm sure Leica and Kodak will get there - but I figure PhotoKina 2010 as the probable date.

[gmaurizio]

We just finished testing the new Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 with the new full frame body (and our old and still reliable Kodak DCS SLR/n) and it seems the pinnacle of wide angle quality. Razor sharp, extremely fast, little easily-correctable distortion using PS CS3, blazing fast AF and only $1,800. This lens is better than the new Canon 14mm, the old Nikon 14mm, and better than the WATE, the CV 12mm and 15mm in spades.

Those of you that are wide-angle loonies should give it a try. It redefines the term get-close-to-your subject.

And it is available in a few days... no more wait for PK 2008, 2010. Couple this with an amazing performance at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 and it might just be the toughest act to follow for Leica. Of course, it is bulky and heavy, but the pictures are nothing short of spectacular.

[sean_reid]

Sean, I refer specifically to images posted by Guy Mancuso. He has posted shots from both the CV15 and the WATE. His WATE images have more of the Leica character, in my view.

 

The (desirable) Leica character is what I describe as "rounder." I might also say "more of a sense of depth" or "more 3-dimensional."

 

Yes, they are also sharper.

 

Regards,

 

Hi Bill,

 

If you get a chance, take a look at the ultra-wides for RF article again. The "depth", "3D" etc. is primarily contrast. When both are focused exactly (and this is very difficult for the CV) the CV actually shows slightly *better* resolution on center than the WATE. In the corners, they're quite equal.

 

The million dollar difference, however, is that the WATE can be focused precisely and that difference means that its files are more likely to show higher resolution (at a chosen distance) than those from the CV 15 or Zeiss 15. That makes a big difference if one is going to look critically at file quality.

 

If one has a good copy of the CV 15 than only two things should really throw off his or her sense of its file quality.

 

1) Pictures that are misfocused (happens more often than not with an uncoupled lens)

2) The illusion that lower contrast means lower resolution. Of course, it doesn't.

 

It's easier to consistently get quite sharp files from the WATE (vs. the CV) simply because it's RF-coupled. And...the WATE's file quality straight from the camera will be more pleasing to some simply because of the higher contrast.

 

Given correct focus (very tough) the CV 15 files will compare very well to those of the WATE (better in some respects, though not all) so long as the files from both camera are processed to the same level of contrast.

 

I think the WATE is an excellent and versatile lens (and I recommend it) but my favorite "15" is the Zeiss 18. That lens, in my mind, sets the optical standard in ultra-wide RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean do you mean vignetting is not better with the wate?

 

Hi LCT,

 

I just checked my own review. Yes, the WATE shows less vignetting than the CV 15 (coding off or on for both).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

We just finished testing the new Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 with the new full frame body (and our old and still reliable Kodak DCS SLR/n) and it seems the pinnacle of wide angle quality. Razor sharp, extremely fast, little easily-correctable distortion using PS CS3, blazing fast AF and only $1,800. This lens is better than the new Canon 14mm, the old Nikon 14mm, and better than the WATE, the CV 12mm and 15mm in spades.

Those of you that are wide-angle loonies should give it a try. It redefines the term get-close-to-your subject.

And it is available in a few days... no more wait for PK 2008, 2010. Couple this with an amazing performance at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 and it might just be the toughest act to follow for Leica. Of course, it is bulky and heavy, but the pictures are nothing short of spectacular.

 

I'm looking forward to testing that D3.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[tom0511]

We just finished testing the new Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 with the new full frame body (and our old and still reliable Kodak DCS SLR/n) and it seems the pinnacle of wide angle quality. Razor sharp, extremely fast, little easily-correctable distortion using PS CS3, blazing fast AF and only $1,800. This lens is better than the new Canon 14mm, the old Nikon 14mm, and better than the WATE, the CV 12mm and 15mm in spades.

Those of you that are wide-angle loonies should give it a try. It redefines the term get-close-to-your subject.

And it is available in a few days... no more wait for PK 2008, 2010. Couple this with an amazing performance at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 and it might just be the toughest act to follow for Leica. Of course, it is bulky and heavy, but the pictures are nothing short of spectacular.

 

Very interesting. Did you also test the 24-70? How does it do at 24mm on full frrame ?

I am very tempted for a d3. 28/1.4, 85/1.4 is a great lens, now you say the 14-24 is great as well.

Still a huge camera. In which regards you would say its better than the wate?

Regards, Tom

[gmaurizio]

Very interesting. Did you also test the 24-70? How does it do at 24mm on full frrame ?

I am very tempted for a d3. 28/1.4, 85/1.4 is a great lens, now you say the 14-24 is great as well.

Still a huge camera. In which regards you would say its better than the wate?

Regards, Tom

 

Tom, we were not that impressed about the 24-70, since our 28-70 is just amazing. The triplet 14-20mm + 17-35mm + 28-70mm covers with a reasonable overlap the whole range from REAL 14 to 70mm, at F2.8 with a camera producing cleaner ISO 3200 than Leica at 640. It needs a tad of sharpening (remember it has the AA filter) but results are SPECTACULAR.

[gmaurizio]

Very interesting. Did you also test the 24-70? How does it do at 24mm on full frrame ?

I am very tempted for a d3. 28/1.4, 85/1.4 is a great lens, now you say the 14-24 is great as well.

Still a huge camera. In which regards you would say its better than the wate?

Regards, Tom

 

It beats the WATE in no-vignetting, no need for IR filters, much sharper and way wider (14mm real vs. 16x1.33mm), zoom is a plus. It does not beat the WATE in weigh. This lens is heavy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

Tom, we were not that impressed about the 24-70, since our 28-70 is just amazing. The triplet 14-20mm + 17-35mm + 28-70mm covers with a reasonable overlap the whole range from REAL 14 to 70mm, at F2.8 with a camera producing cleaner ISO 3200 than Leica at 640. It needs a tad of sharpening (remember it has the AA filter) but results are SPECTACULAR.

 

I once tested a salpe of the 17-35, and I have to say this particular 17-35 was nor really sharp at f2.8 and f.4. Even my 17-55 was sharper at 17 and at 35 mm.

[Mark Pope]

All else being equal pictures made with the WATE will be sharper than those made with the CV 15 simply because the former can be focused precisely. With a camera like the M8, in particular, that really can matter.

 

Now, if Voigtlander were to offer a rangefinder couled 15mm, that would upset the applecart. IMHO, it would have to be a screw thread though so it could be coded...