bob338
Well-known
I am *this close* to buying a 16-18-21 WATE for my M8.
I am shooting pictures for a book and I am finding that I need much wider lenses than I have.
The pictures are all buildings and street scenes, none of them will center on any people, although there may be people in some of them. Speed is not an issue as most of these pictures are shot in daylight and on a tripod.
My questions are...
Overall, do you like the lens?
How does it compare to primes in the respective FL?
Is it a hassle to change focal length?
Is the Frankenfinder accurate?
How well does the coding work with the M8?
Do you want to sell yours?
Any other tips or insights will be appreciated.
Bob
I am shooting pictures for a book and I am finding that I need much wider lenses than I have.
The pictures are all buildings and street scenes, none of them will center on any people, although there may be people in some of them. Speed is not an issue as most of these pictures are shot in daylight and on a tripod.
My questions are...
Overall, do you like the lens?
How does it compare to primes in the respective FL?
Is it a hassle to change focal length?
Is the Frankenfinder accurate?
How well does the coding work with the M8?
Do you want to sell yours?
Any other tips or insights will be appreciated.
Bob
DrDick
Member
WATE on M8
WATE on M8
Hi Bob,
I've had a WA TE for 2+ years. Initially using it on an M8, then for last 2 months on an M9. I love the lens and its performance is great - better than my Canon 17-40 L on FF body. When I bought my WATE Leica didn't offer the 18mm Super Elmar-M. I found most of my shots were taken at 16mm. When you mounted the lens it doesn't default to the 16mm setting. If you forget to set it to 16mm the algorithm for cyan drift using infrared filters is wrong and difficult to correct in photoshop afterwards. The big finder is abit cumbersome - but if you are using it on an M8 you can use the much smaller cylindrical 21/24/28 finder which of course will correspond with the views of the lens on your M8. The other vital accessory is the Milich adapter which allows you to mount an infrared filter of much smaller size than the Leica filter holder. You have to take the 46mm Leica infrared filter out of its mount and put it in the Milich holder which sits much more neatly on the lens. (of course the Milich holder is only useable on the M8 - it vignette's on the M9 which doesn't need IR filters anyway) I would be inclined if making the investment now to save some money and buy the 18mm. But i remain delighted with the lens and won't be trading it in! if you need the extra view of the 16mm then go for it - but budget for the Milich holder and IR filter. Happy shopping! Dick
WATE on M8
Hi Bob,
I've had a WA TE for 2+ years. Initially using it on an M8, then for last 2 months on an M9. I love the lens and its performance is great - better than my Canon 17-40 L on FF body. When I bought my WATE Leica didn't offer the 18mm Super Elmar-M. I found most of my shots were taken at 16mm. When you mounted the lens it doesn't default to the 16mm setting. If you forget to set it to 16mm the algorithm for cyan drift using infrared filters is wrong and difficult to correct in photoshop afterwards. The big finder is abit cumbersome - but if you are using it on an M8 you can use the much smaller cylindrical 21/24/28 finder which of course will correspond with the views of the lens on your M8. The other vital accessory is the Milich adapter which allows you to mount an infrared filter of much smaller size than the Leica filter holder. You have to take the 46mm Leica infrared filter out of its mount and put it in the Milich holder which sits much more neatly on the lens. (of course the Milich holder is only useable on the M8 - it vignette's on the M9 which doesn't need IR filters anyway) I would be inclined if making the investment now to save some money and buy the 18mm. But i remain delighted with the lens and won't be trading it in! if you need the extra view of the 16mm then go for it - but budget for the Milich holder and IR filter. Happy shopping! Dick
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
My impression is that I would really love to be able to afford that lens! 8^0
f 10
Member
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
f 10
Member
I agree with you, that was the reason why I sold the WATE.
As an alternative, I have the CV 5,6 / 12mm - now I'm happy.
However, it is not as sharp in the corners, but it is very very good.
rickp
Well-known
GOOD LUCK
RICK
P.S. I HAVE THE MILICH FILTER ADAPTER WITH LEICA FILTER IF YOU NEED IT................
Hephaestus
Established
I use my WATE, and my wides in general, almost exclusively for street photography, but I like it. I do not use or own the viewfinder, and I usually shoot it instinctively from the hip without framing properly. I am happy with the images that this lens makes, far better controlled at 16mm than the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II that is almost permanently mounted on my 5dMkII.
The boon with a lens like this is that you can zone focus and at f5.6 have everything sharp from just outside a meter till infinity: outstanding for work on the street. Just ballpark aiming the camera and click, and you've got the moment.
My only reservation with the WATE is that I am equally satisfied with the image quality of the C/V 15mm, and it is MUCH smaller and less expensive. In fact, the C/V 15mm has been my most used lens in the last 18 months, and I would not ever leave it out of my bag. Its also easier to zone focus than the WATE. Your mileage may vary...
I hope you find what you're looking for!
Ryan
The boon with a lens like this is that you can zone focus and at f5.6 have everything sharp from just outside a meter till infinity: outstanding for work on the street. Just ballpark aiming the camera and click, and you've got the moment.
My only reservation with the WATE is that I am equally satisfied with the image quality of the C/V 15mm, and it is MUCH smaller and less expensive. In fact, the C/V 15mm has been my most used lens in the last 18 months, and I would not ever leave it out of my bag. Its also easier to zone focus than the WATE. Your mileage may vary...
I hope you find what you're looking for!
Ryan
bob338
Well-known
Thanks for the opinions and tips. I will be making a decision in the morning, I have three different offers pending right now and they are all within a few dollars of each other.
Bob
Bob
DrDick
Member
Bob,
Bear in mind that neither the Voigtlander 12mm or 15mm are rangefinder coupled. Changing the WATE focal length on the lens is a dream - just twist. And although technically not a zoom - you can set focal lengths inbetween the indents. Then if using the cylindrical 21/24/28 finder you can also set that finder between official focal lengths. The distortion - almost inevitable with very wideangle lenses - is fairly easily correctable in Lightroom or Photoshop. Even though the M9 ships with Lightroom 3 it still doesn't have the auto lens specific corrections for Leica lenses (it has all the Canon & Nikon corrections) I presume in time they will be available. Let us know what your final decision is!
Dick
Bear in mind that neither the Voigtlander 12mm or 15mm are rangefinder coupled. Changing the WATE focal length on the lens is a dream - just twist. And although technically not a zoom - you can set focal lengths inbetween the indents. Then if using the cylindrical 21/24/28 finder you can also set that finder between official focal lengths. The distortion - almost inevitable with very wideangle lenses - is fairly easily correctable in Lightroom or Photoshop. Even though the M9 ships with Lightroom 3 it still doesn't have the auto lens specific corrections for Leica lenses (it has all the Canon & Nikon corrections) I presume in time they will be available. Let us know what your final decision is!
Dick
bob338
Well-known
I might ruffle some feathers by saying this, but I don't like most of the CV lenses I've tried, too clinically sharp and uninteresting for my taste. And I own a 15mm Heliar, but I rarely use it. In fact I plan to sell it in the classifieds this week.
I ended up buying the WATE/Frankenfinder tonight from a dealer called Capture Integration. They were a bit more expensive(by $350) than the 2 other offers I had but their offer includes everything that came with it new(boxes, pouches and paperwork) and a Milich filter adapter and the other two did not.
I'll post some pictures when i get it.
Thanks for all the comments, I was pretty apprehensive about spending this kind of money on a lens.
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Too late to influence your choice, but a bit of reassurance about how good it is: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews wate.html
Cheers,
R.
Too late to influence your choice, but a bit of reassurance about how good it is: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews wate.html
Cheers,
R.
bob338
Well-known
thanks for the info roger, nice review. i should have the lens in a few days, i can't wait.
bob
tooffy
Established
Congrats on your purchase. I'm a little late to influence your decision. I like it for travel & street on M8. Resolution is rather amazing. M8 + WATE@18mm; 100% of the yellow circled area
I have brand new UV/IR filters for this lens for sale in the classifieds if anyone needs them...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/24423/cat/6
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/24423/cat/6
bob338
Well-known
Got the lens! It is considerably smaller and lighter than i thought it would be, very light too. The frankenfinder is also smaller than it looks on a computer screen and it is a real pleasure to use!
Thanks for all the advice and opinions.
Here are a couple of shots from my daughter at the park this morning...
Thanks for all the advice and opinions.
Here are a couple of shots from my daughter at the park this morning...
Attachments
Olsen
Well-known
I bought my M8 together with the WATE most of the time. I regard the M8/WATE combo to be 'the best digital wide angle solution around'. Better than my 1Ds III and the 16-35 mm 2,5L II even if the crop factor is corrected for. I have also the VC 15 mm (uncoupled) which is far inferior in performance.
I have done a lot of tests of these two lenses. Resolution wise they seem close, but the WATE excels with a far better contrast and clarity. The VC 15 does not handle difficult applications well. Like contrasts of silverware, glass etc. Details in the shadows disappear with the VC 15.
Many (like Reid) argue that the difference between the VC 15 and the WATE is marginal and does not justify the huge price difference. But this is just how photography has always been; you have to pay a huge difference for, to many, minor improvements.
I have done a lot of tests of these two lenses. Resolution wise they seem close, but the WATE excels with a far better contrast and clarity. The VC 15 does not handle difficult applications well. Like contrasts of silverware, glass etc. Details in the shadows disappear with the VC 15.
Many (like Reid) argue that the difference between the VC 15 and the WATE is marginal and does not justify the huge price difference. But this is just how photography has always been; you have to pay a huge difference for, to many, minor improvements.