jonoslack
Active member
No need for respect
. I actually haven't tried panoramas with the WATE . . .your's have inspired me to give it a go.The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar vs 21mm 1.4 or 18mm 3.8
- Thread starter mAlKhamis
- Start date
. I actually haven't tried panoramas with the WATE . . .your's have inspired me to give it a go.
V
vanhulsenbeek
Guest
You will not be disappointed: I had them printed: great!No need for respect
markowich
New member
mohammad,
i do not have the 21 LUX and the MTFs are not convincing. i tried the leica 21 f2.8 and i do prefer the zeiss biogon 21 f2.8.
50mm....my LUX is sharp at all apertures, chromatic aberration well controlled, almost no distorsion....a wonderful lens. i can hardly believe that the CRON is sharper.
peter
V
vanhulsenbeek
Guest
Ah, good question!
I always shoot portrait panels, never landscape.
Landscape leads to long narrow 'stringy' panoramas.
And always with lots of overlap, so at least 10 to 15. Costs nothing anyway.
My Nodal Ninja 3MKII pano head ( http://www.nodalninja.com/products/panoheads/nodalninja3.html )
has a clickstop mechanism. Very convenient.
I always shoot portrait panels, never landscape.
Landscape leads to long narrow 'stringy' panoramas.
And always with lots of overlap, so at least 10 to 15. Costs nothing anyway.
My Nodal Ninja 3MKII pano head ( http://www.nodalninja.com/products/panoheads/nodalninja3.html )
has a clickstop mechanism. Very convenient.
mAlKhamis
New member
Sander my hat is down for your amazing inspiring work !!! just add me as a a new humble fan to your list, well done !!!! i love your panoramas, and it seems that you are really enjoying your WATE.I respectfully beg to differ. I find 35mm Panorama's with the M9 too restricted in height.
I have published several of my very recent New Zealand pano's on Zenfolio (see for a quick slidehow here: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/ ) and most are shot with the WATE at 16-21mm. The New Zealand Pano's are in this Group of Gelleries: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/f52853875
For the connoisseur: many of these are pictures made on the Milford and Routeburn Tracks
This item: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/p301833660/h3276db6b#h3276db6b in the South Island Gallery, is for me a typical 35mm: too long and narrow.
Also I should state here that the WATE, together with PTGui, produces excellent Pano's and distortion does not come into the game at all, with me that is
I'm just wondering if i can do something similar if i choose the WATE mounted on an Arca swiss cube 1
cheers! and thank you for your response :thumbs:
mAlKhamis
New member
Thank you so much peter, but why do you prefer the zeiss biogon 21 f2.8 over the elmerit 21mm ?
cheers!
M
V
vanhulsenbeek
Guest
Mohammad,
Thanks! About the Arca Cube: I read this on their website:
"The C1 Cube ...... places the camera inside of a sphere. It is almost as if the x/y axes meet at a point upon the image plane itself, with all the camera rotating around a stationary image plane."
But with pano's - especially when you get glose to the subject, or when some subject matter is close, like in interior shots - you want to rotate the lens around the nodal point, of that lens. For that you use a pano head.
Read here, copied from the Nodal Ninja site: " A pano head is designed in such a manner so as to position a camera/lens so that it rotates about the no parallax point (NPP) axis of a lens. In the head and eyeball analogy above if you your able to somehow position your head so your eyeball was centered over your neck you would not see your thumb move when your head moved left to right. This is what pano head does. Without getting into technical jargon basically the NPP of a lens is the point inside the lens where the light is reversed before moving onto the camera sensor. Commonly call the nodal point but technically called the entrance pupil – they are all the same – this is the no parallax point (NPP) of a lens. You must rotate the entire camera and lens around this NPP axis to achieve a parallax free image. It is the primary purpose of a pano head."
Reading this, I am not sure if the Arca Cube can do this. If it can, you are OK though.
I, however, use the Nodal Ninja 3MKII, http://www.nodalninja.com/product_selector.html
which is excellently suited for M type camera's. The heavier NN5 or the much more expensive Novoflex setup are for heavier camera's IMHO
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
markowich
New member
less distorsion, at least as sharp and much less expensive.
p
>>>PETER WROTE----> dave,
even the MTF graphs of the WATE tell a great deal of the story as far as corner contrast is concerned. well, and i have to admit i am a pixel peeper and i do analyse images on a scientific level (local contrast and frequency analysis and so on). of course, prints tend to equalize...
i am very dillusioned about the distorsion of the WA leica glass.
peter>>>
Hi Peter,
Like yourself I too analize files and optical performance of lenses in great depth. The WATE has a some compromises as does some of Leica's other wide angle offerings, but it's impressive overall, in my opinion. I completely concur that Leica's wide angle lenses fall short regarding distortion for certain applications. I've often felt that wide angles (wider than 24mm) we're Leica's weak point in terms of certain optical paramters, whereas Zeiss had a somehwat better handle on this. In the telephoto range, I personally think its just the reverse. Again it's very much "intent specific" and how a lens is going to be used, as to whether it's shortcomings is going to be an issue or not for the shooter. It's all relative. Thanks.
Dave (D&A)
even the MTF graphs of the WATE tell a great deal of the story as far as corner contrast is concerned. well, and i have to admit i am a pixel peeper and i do analyse images on a scientific level (local contrast and frequency analysis and so on). of course, prints tend to equalize...
i am very dillusioned about the distorsion of the WA leica glass.
peter>>>
Hi Peter,
Like yourself I too analize files and optical performance of lenses in great depth. The WATE has a some compromises as does some of Leica's other wide angle offerings, but it's impressive overall, in my opinion. I completely concur that Leica's wide angle lenses fall short regarding distortion for certain applications. I've often felt that wide angles (wider than 24mm) we're Leica's weak point in terms of certain optical paramters, whereas Zeiss had a somehwat better handle on this. In the telephoto range, I personally think its just the reverse. Again it's very much "intent specific" and how a lens is going to be used, as to whether it's shortcomings is going to be an issue or not for the shooter. It's all relative. Thanks.
Dave (D&A)
markowich
New member
dave,
i couldn't agree more...
of course WA performance is a weak point of many competitors, take canon for example. it seems however that their 17mm TS performs well. likewise the nikon 14-24mm is really nice (albeit big). i do prefer its performance over the WATE.
peter
ps: unfortunately the zeiss 15mm is not RF coupled, what a stupidity...
Hi Peter,
We're on the same wavelength here in regard to all you posted. Yes, I too found it extremely odd that Zeiss didn't rangefinder couple the 15mm f2.8, which I would have liked to see. After seeing what they did with their 18mm, in terms of most optical paramaters, I keep thinking that there must have been some logic or technical reason for this lack of coupling (in their 15mm), otherwise why would zeiss overlook the obvious. The only other thing I could come up with, is that they knew in advance that Voigtlander was redesigning their 15mm to be rangefinder coupled and because of the two companies association with one another (and possible agreeements), the 15mm f2.8 had to be released as non-rangefinder coupled.
Also agree, the Canon's are (were) weak on ultra wideangles whereas Nikon had a better handle on corner performance. The Nikon 14-24 is a tremendous performer and agree its a lens not to be overlooked, except for it size/weight, which for most purposes, isn't generally used as a walk-around lens.
Everything has tradeoffs and it all depends on what a lens intended use is going to be for an individual shooter.
So what we all want is a 15-24mm "M" lens, compact, no distortion, as sharp as the best of them (right into the corners) inexpensive, built like a tank, rangefinder coupled and oh yea, under $700.00 . Did I leave anything out?
Serious though, I have to give it to Leica for coming up with the WATE, interms of what its capable of doing and how good it does it....acknowledging that some optical compromises needed to be made, for it to be practical in use on a "M" body.
Dave (D&A)
We're on the same wavelength here in regard to all you posted. Yes, I too found it extremely odd that Zeiss didn't rangefinder couple the 15mm f2.8, which I would have liked to see. After seeing what they did with their 18mm, in terms of most optical paramaters, I keep thinking that there must have been some logic or technical reason for this lack of coupling (in their 15mm), otherwise why would zeiss overlook the obvious. The only other thing I could come up with, is that they knew in advance that Voigtlander was redesigning their 15mm to be rangefinder coupled and because of the two companies association with one another (and possible agreeements), the 15mm f2.8 had to be released as non-rangefinder coupled.
Also agree, the Canon's are (were) weak on ultra wideangles whereas Nikon had a better handle on corner performance. The Nikon 14-24 is a tremendous performer and agree its a lens not to be overlooked, except for it size/weight, which for most purposes, isn't generally used as a walk-around lens.
Everything has tradeoffs and it all depends on what a lens intended use is going to be for an individual shooter.
So what we all want is a 15-24mm "M" lens, compact, no distortion, as sharp as the best of them (right into the corners) inexpensive, built like a tank, rangefinder coupled and oh yea, under $700.00 . Did I leave anything out?
Serious though, I have to give it to Leica for coming up with the WATE, interms of what its capable of doing and how good it does it....acknowledging that some optical compromises needed to be made, for it to be practical in use on a "M" body.
Dave (D&A)
Can you ... or someone else, please elaborate on what you folks specifically mean by "distortion?"
I have all of the lenses in question, and have previously had most of the others. I also have owned and shot with most of the Zeiss M mount lenses (except the 15mm).
I evaluate optics based on taking photographs ... which includes a fair amount of churchs while shooting weddings; exteriors of locations for corporate clients; and room interiors for both ... as well as travel jobs. I left Canon due to the horrible distortion of most their WA lenses ... including mustache distortion on some lenses which is very difficult to correct with software.
My experience so far is that the Leica wides have very little distortion of straight verticals and horizontals near the edges of the frame. This is easy to evaluate in actual use when using perspective correction programs for off-kilter WA shots using either or both vertical or horizontal lens correction software solutions. Once properly aligned, the grid line overlay tells the story ... pretty straight edges: top, bottom and sides.
Now there may be some "slight" compromises made just like Zeiss did when re-doing the 40IF. The 40CFE actually was better corrected for distortion but at the price of softer corners. The IF was sharper in the corners, but at the expense of some distortion. Regular distortion is a no brainer to correct ... variable soft image qualities are not.
The aspect of Zeiss M mount optics verses Leica M is very subjective.
Zeiss doesn't make a M mount Tri-elmar type lens. Their 15 isn't rangefinder coupled. Zeiss doesn't offer any f/1.4 SWA lenses.
The remainder of the Zeiss options are indeed sharp, but IMO lack "pictorial character" found from many Leica M WA lenses including some of the newer ones being discussed.
Having used both brands extensively, I personally prefer the art of making photographs every time. The Zeiss optics are great for the money, but lack the punch or something special that is visually apparent when compared side-by-side. Both employ "micro contrast," but it seems more apparent from the Leica glass ... at least when one makes a print. I noticed that the Leica prints are just as sharp, but lusher looking, the blacks are always nicer, and the color richer overall, given the same light at the same time. Plus, most of the Zeiss lenses are slow apertures and less suited for low ambient work ... one reason I use a rangefinder in the first place. Zeiss is fine if the ultimate goal is to have sharp images in good light.
But that may just be me ... I also did not like the look of very much that I shot with my Contax G2 and all those Zeiss lenses ... so it's strictly subjectivity on the part of this user.
IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.
-Marc
jonoslack
Active member
I Quite agree Marc. I've had the WATE since it first appeared, and I've always loved the results, and very rarely been disturbed by distortion or soft corners. I also had the Nikon 14-24, and whilst I recognise it as an excellent lens, the images it produced never floated my boat, added to which it's just slightly bigger than the WATE:ROTFL:IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.
-Marc
markowich
New member
hi marc,
leica 18mm super elmar 18mm.
http://www.pbase.com/markowich/image/121468358
peter
leica 18mm super elmar 18mm.
http://www.pbase.com/markowich/image/121468358
peter
Can you ... or someone else, please elaborate on what you folks specifically mean by "distortion?"
I have all of the lenses in question, and have previously had most of the others. I also have owned and shot with most of the Zeiss M mount lenses (except the 15mm).
I evaluate optics based on taking photographs ... which includes a fair amount of churchs while shooting weddings; exteriors of locations for corporate clients; and room interiors for both ... as well as travel jobs. I left Canon due to the horrible distortion of most their WA lenses ... including mustache distortion on some lenses which is very difficult to correct with software.
My experience so far is that the Leica wides have very little distortion of straight verticals and horizontals near the edges of the frame. This is easy to evaluate in actual use when using perspective correction programs for off-kilter WA shots using either or both vertical or horizontal lens correction software solutions. Once properly aligned, the grid line overlay tells the story ... pretty straight edges: top, bottom and sides.
Now there may be some "slight" compromises made just like Zeiss did when re-doing the 40IF. The 40CFE actually was better corrected for distortion but at the price of softer corners. The IF was sharper in the corners, but at the expense of some distortion. Regular distortion is a no brainer to correct ... variable soft image qualities are not.
The aspect of Zeiss M mount optics verses Leica M is very subjective.
Zeiss doesn't make a M mount Tri-elmar type lens. Their 15 isn't rangefinder coupled. Zeiss doesn't offer any f/1.4 SWA lenses.
The remainder of the Zeiss options are indeed sharp, but IMO lack "pictorial character" found from many Leica M WA lenses including some of the newer ones being discussed.
Having used both brands extensively, I personally prefer the art of making photographs every time. The Zeiss optics are great for the money, but lack the punch or something special that is visually apparent when compared side-by-side. Both employ "micro contrast," but it seems more apparent from the Leica glass ... at least when one makes a print. I noticed that the Leica prints are just as sharp, but lusher looking, the blacks are always nicer, and the color richer overall, given the same light at the same time. Plus, most of the Zeiss lenses are slow apertures and less suited for low ambient work ... one reason I use a rangefinder in the first place. Zeiss is fine if the ultimate goal is to have sharp images in good light.
But that may just be me ... I also did not like the look of very much that I shot with my Contax G2 and all those Zeiss lenses ... so it's strictly subjectivity on the part of this user.
IMO, too much science is just as bad as too much artistic subjectivity ... where a balance seems prudent. However, I do not make "science" as my end product, so I'll error on the side of art.
-Marc
markowich
New member
jono,
surely enough, in typical non discerning M-style street photography and in most landscape shootings (those which do not require a straight horizon) the WATE does rather well. maybe this is what it was made for. i do not want to reiterate my corner sharpness issue where we apparently have a different perception of what it should be.....
anyway, if you do architecuture or at least try to get lines straight for whatever reason, you will start to appreciate the nikon 14-24 or the new nikon 24mm f1.4 which in every respect that i tested beats the LUX 24mm.
peter
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Peter
I already appreciate your points (except that I haven't used the new Nikon 24 f1.4). I think our difference in perception is more to do with what one wants from photographs than an absolute requirement for a straight horizon. Mind you, I would have thought that if you were doing architectural photography, then using a Nikon with whatever lens was the wrong answer (surely your Hasselblads are a better solution).
My problem with Nikon's lenses/cameras was a complete failure to get 'satisfying' colour away from artificial lighting or basic daylight - something that the WATE seems to manage effortlessly with the M9.
The trouble is that 'satisfying colour' really isn't something that one can quantify scientifically; 'accurate colour' is much easier . .
My point is that if you use proper scientific method to analyse lenses and their results, then you will come to a proper decision as to which lens is better than which (as you've done). But photography is an art form, not a science, and (in my very humble opinion) a good lens has more connection with a good bottle of wine than a good scientific experiment.
Then of course, a D3x with the 14-24 weighs 2240gms, and an M9 with a WATE weighs 930gms, it's not unrealistic to expect some compromises!
Last edited:
I would have sent that lens right back to Leica.
It reminds me of a job where I had to shoot the dairy section in a Supermarket. We had shoot it in sections to print huge panels pieced together for a trade show display. I used a Contax 645 and Zeiss 35mm ... what a nightmare. We could not get any of the shelves to line up due to horrible wavy distortion.
I don't do any of that stuff with a 35mm camera any longer. It's all a done with a tech camera and Schneider or Rodenstock HR Digital APO lenses.:thumbs: Horses for courses.
I did liked the Nikon 14-24/2.8 a lot. Unfortunately it is huge and unwieldy with protruding front element ... not to mention you had to use it on a Nikon camera with it's CMOS sensor and AA filter which I subjectively dislike. Same for the Nikon 24/1.4 ... doesn't matter how good it is, it fits on a CMOS DSLR.:thumbdown:
Eye of the beholder and all that.
-Marc
Hacker
New member
There is an article in the July LFI 2009 issue comparing 7 ASPH WA lenses on the M7 and the M8: WATE, 18mm, 21mm Lux and 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Lux, 24mm Elmarit and 24mm Elmar. I often see vignetting, especially on the Lux lenses. One possiblity I've toyed with is to use the lenses on film (trying very hard to keep everything digital).
The Nikon WAs are really good, no issues with the 14-24, 16-35 and even the 24 f/1.4.
The Nikon WAs are really good, no issues with the 14-24, 16-35 and even the 24 f/1.4.
Marc,
I've encountered the same kind of distortion that Peter illustrated in a couple of Lecia 18mm f3.8 lenses I tried. Thats why I went for the Zeiss 18mm instead and it was much better in this regard. I'm not sure if it's a one (or two) "off" or unfortunately part of the optical design of the Leica 18mm, hence, will be an issue in all Leica 18mm lenses. if so, sending it back to Leica wouldn't help. I've heard others wwho noticed the same thing in their Leica 18mm. As for the WAte, I fell it has a decent handle on distortion. As you, I and many others say...it all depends on use and what ones intent is, regarding use of a particular lens and it's aparent weaknesses. In additon, what emphasis one places on the artistic merrits of a lens vs. it's shear optical performance, will vary greatly...again according to personal preference and ones intended use of such lens.
Dave (D&A)
I've encountered the same kind of distortion that Peter illustrated in a couple of Lecia 18mm f3.8 lenses I tried. Thats why I went for the Zeiss 18mm instead and it was much better in this regard. I'm not sure if it's a one (or two) "off" or unfortunately part of the optical design of the Leica 18mm, hence, will be an issue in all Leica 18mm lenses. if so, sending it back to Leica wouldn't help. I've heard others wwho noticed the same thing in their Leica 18mm. As for the WAte, I fell it has a decent handle on distortion. As you, I and many others say...it all depends on use and what ones intent is, regarding use of a particular lens and it's aparent weaknesses. In additon, what emphasis one places on the artistic merrits of a lens vs. it's shear optical performance, will vary greatly...again according to personal preference and ones intended use of such lens.
Dave (D&A)