JBA Posted June 24, 2008 Share #1 Posted June 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is anybody using the WATE for shooting film? So far, I haven't seen much about this lens except from M8 users, but I'm interested in seeing examples of how this lens performs at its nominal focal lengths with a film M. Can anyone describe their experiences using this lens for film and post photos? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Hi JBA, Take a look here WATE for film photography . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JBA Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share #2 Posted June 25, 2008 Just to clarify what I'm talking about, it's the 16-18-21 f/4 Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar. Seriously, nobody uses this lens for film photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 25, 2008 Share #3 Posted June 25, 2008 John it probably doesnt help but I came to the conclusion that the answer was to carry two Ms with your lenses permanently attached. Failing that I will buy an oppositions digital with a twenty fortish, thirty five to seventyish zoom. Sad I know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 25, 2008 Share #4 Posted June 25, 2008 I still cant spell and I had two goes at it. Isnt teh wate out round f/....four or five or nine or something? I guess rich people get the hired help and the servants to hold the candles for mood lighting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerdoc Posted June 25, 2008 Share #5 Posted June 25, 2008 What? It's a great lens for the film camera. I have to take off the Milich adapter that has the IR/UV filter so it won't vignette, but that takes all of about 20 seconds. It's a superb lens in all aspects. And 16mm on a Leica M7? Wow! I even like the Frankenfinder...... Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted June 25, 2008 Rob, the problem with getting dedicated bodies for ultrawides is that ultimately I would end up spending more than it would cost for the WATE, at least by my calculus. Besides, my reason for wanting multiple bodies would be for shooting different types of film in each, which would mean lens changes. Steve, could you post any examples of film photos you've taken with the WATE? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 26, 2008 Share #7 Posted June 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm interested to hear how useful going from 18 to 16 or 21 to 18 would be. I would have thought that ultra wides would be pretty specific lenses requiring a fair amount of learning especially on an M. I travelled on a couple of occasions with an R24 which I absolutely loathe, and there were times when a valid portrait situation or framing arose, but it needed to be on the fly, and to mess around changing from the 24 which is too distorting at the distances I shoot at, meant losing the shot, or getting a staged or posed portrait. Going from 24 to fifty requires different head space, too and I felt like I had to be able to just drop the 24. I guess it depends how quick you feel you want to work. Be interesting to hear how you find as you are using a 35 mainly at the moment? Again I am not sure what the advantages are in a Wate over well learnt fixed focus wides but am interested in seeing some shots. ps..the second thread response up there was taking teh piss with Imants but hes pulled his comment and left me with the bath water. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted June 26, 2008 Share #8 Posted June 26, 2008 The concept of three lenses in one is, on the face of it a good idea but the down side, other than price is bulk. I think most M users love the whole compact and discreet bit and to whack a big bulky lens on to an M body is an anathema. I certainly would never consider one. I have a 35mm-50mm-75mm all in separate Summicrom lenses but I only ever take one out at once. I then look for things to photograph at that focal length. It is a good discipline to adopt if you have never tried it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share #9 Posted June 26, 2008 Rob, good point about changing lenses. I did not mean to imply that I wouldn't be using multiple bodies, which I will whether or not I eventually opt for the WATE (and I definitely see at least one MP in my future). I think the WATE could be quite useful in Tokyo's cramped spaces. I handled the lens briefly on an M8, which only gave me hints of how it would work with a film M. Perhaps a 21 would suffice for an extreme wide angle, but it would be nice to be able to go wider without switching lenses. The real question is whether this convenience is worth the expense and f/4 maximum aperature. My two lenses now are 35 and 90 Summicrons, and I'm about to plug the 50 hole. 35 feels more "normal" than wide to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share #10 Posted June 26, 2008 Kenneth, my 90 AA Summicron, which I use constantly, dwarfs the WATE. Bulk is not really a big issue for me. In any case, at this point I'm really most interested in seeing some photos taken with this lens on film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 26, 2008 Share #11 Posted June 26, 2008 I think the fifty is going to take you into a "christ which lens will I take" future. I went 35 and 75, so theres definite uses. 35 only travel is fine but there are those occasions where it is simpler to manage the backgrounds in portraits with the 75, and being a summicron it definitely delivers very even keeled easily editable files. Never seems to be a problem. I have to be very careful with the 35 summilux, I find it a real edgy lens, and for the moment I am pretty much on 100iso learners permit. If I take shorter than a 35 then I almost certainly need the second lens in the bag. Keen as you to see the wate images but I am almost definitely not in the market for one at any price. You would be using it with an external viewfinder I figure? Is there a special one specific for the lens with framelines? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share #12 Posted June 26, 2008 The 90 AA Summicron does for me what your 75 does for you. I carry all my equipment all the time and think nothing of changing lenses on the fly. While I was renting the 50 Summicron last weekend, I discplined myself to use only that lens, even though I was still carrying everything. Compared to the Nikon F2 and battery of lenses I used to lug around, it's nothing by comparison. The WATE takes the so-called "frankenfinder," which is a rather large finder with dials for the bright lines for each focal length and their M8 equivalents as well as close focus compensation. The whole package is a brilliant bit of optical engineering, if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted June 26, 2008 Share #13 Posted June 26, 2008 Just to clarify what I'm talking about, it's the 16-18-21 f/4 Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar. Seriously, nobody uses this lens for film photography? Really ? Is this a fact ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 26, 2008 Share #14 Posted June 26, 2008 Seems so X, we cant get any images posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted June 27, 2008 Really ? Is this a fact ? No, it was a question. But nobody has posted any images yet. You'd think anybody using such an amazing feat of optical engineering would be anxious to show their results. I may just have to get one of my own and be the first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 29, 2008 Share #16 Posted June 29, 2008 And a monopod to support it. A new bayonet for your M body is about fifteen hundred Aussie dollars:D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 29, 2008 Author Share #17 Posted June 29, 2008 Rob, you know someone is bound to adapt it to thread mount. Sooner or later we'll smoke out someone who's shot film with this lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.