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!

WATE on M9?

henningw

Member
Any thoughts on the new CV 15-35 viewfinder? Looks like it might be slightly less imposing than the Leica... If anyone has had a chance to try it out I'd love to know how the 15 framelines compare to the 16 end of the WATE!
I have a WATE with Frankenfinder as well as the CV alternates 12, 15, 21 with zoom finder and others.

The CV finder is a little smaller, but it is larger front to back, has no bubble and you can't see outside the frame. It's nice and clear, shows average distortion levels and is nicely made. However, it's still over $500 and just doesn't work as well as the Frankenfinder. If you get the WATE, get the Frankenfinder unless you need a finder that goes up to 35mm.

And yes, the WATE works wonderfully on the M9 (and M8). It has a bit too much distortion at 16mm but is otherwise outstanding.

Henning
 

mjm6

Member
Amazing inages, everyone!

I've been thinking about a lens in the 18mm range to complement my 24mm elmarit... Back in the film shooting day, I had a Canon system with a 24mm and a 17mm. While I used the 17mm only 1/5 as often as the 24mm, it did get a decent amount of use. Hence my desire to add a similar lens in the Leica digital system.

SO... I was looking at the 18mm elmarit and the CZ equivalent, and hadn't really considered the WATE. Looking at these images makes me think that I really need to consider the WATE as an alternative as well. My wallet may be very unhappy about that, though.

Can anyone speak directly to the performance of the WATE at 18mm compared to the 18mm CZ lens? While the 18mm elmarit is in there as well, from all measures, the CZ is the better lens (distortion, falloff, distortion, DISTORTION, etc.) I'm not interested in a lens that will require substantial processing in the computer before lines look straight and the color doesn't go all funky on the left edge.

Right now, all my lenses are Leica, and I prefer the rendering and contrast of the Leica lenses over the CZ lenses in general, and actually prefer the rendering of non-ASPH Leica over ASPH Leica as well, but not in every case. The non-ASPH lenses seem to have smoother transitions that I find more pleasing. I'm sure they aren't quite as sharp at the ultimate point of focus, but I'll give that up for nicer transition rendering and OOF rendering.

Thanks,


---Michael
 

henningw

Member
Can anyone speak directly to the performance of the WATE at 18mm compared to the 18mm CZ lens? While the 18mm elmarit is in there as well, from all measures, the CZ is the better lens (distortion, falloff, distortion, DISTORTION, etc.) I'm not interested in a lens that will require substantial processing in the computer before lines look straight and the color doesn't go all funky on the left edge.
The Leica 18mm offers the best MTF performance, and the WATE the poorest, with the Zeiss in between. But the Leica 18 and WATE have very even performance center to edge, while the Zeiss has excellent central performance and the poorest edge performance. The latter can sometimes be seen. Overall though the performance of all three is excellent.

The Zeiss, as you noted, has the best distortion performance and the distortion of the WATE is something that annoys me at times, but I can fix it if it annoys me with LensFix, a front end for Panotools which can correct distortion perfectly. The distortion of the Zeiss is sufficient that I would need to correct that at times as well, and obviously that of the Leica 18 as well. However, for ultimate performance it's best to get the lens that gives the best technical performance other than distortion right off, as distortion can be corrected while edge performance can't be improved. Under these considerations the Leica 18 wins.

The lenses are not a lot different in size or weight, with the WATE being the longest and thinnest, and the Zeiss being the shortest and widest. Obviously, the Zeiss has to be coded in some way.

The Zeiss 18mm finder is the brightest and nicest for looking through and the Leica 18 finder is more compact and least likely to snag on things. The Frankenfinder is the best once you look through it (and not at it!) because while it's not as bright as the Zeiss (minimal difference) it has more space around the framelines, parallax correction and a bubble level. It also has a locking shoe. The Zeiss finder I do have (25/28) snags on things more than the Frankenfinder due I think to the funny corners that Zeiss put on it and it slips out of the shoe more easily.

I got the WATE and finder through a Leica promotion for a lot less than the Leica 18 alone would cost now when I got my M8, and I'm delighted. I wasn't that sure that the relatively slight differences in focal lengths would be useful, but they certainly are. It's my go-to wideangle lens when a large aperture isn't necessary.

Henning
 

mjm6

Member
Henning,

An excellent commentary, and much appreciated. That brings a lot to think about for me on a lens in that focal length.

I've got to start saving up for the M10 the rate things are going as well, but the Leica lenses need a bit more attention before I make a decision on a short lens.


---Michael
 

bugsbugs

New member
I'm using WATE with the CV 15-35 finder, it's nice with the smaller size than the frankenfinder and it is very bright.
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
The images posted from the WATE are sure impressive! I've never even held one in my hands, let alone get to shoot it. Jan, we should get together again sometime and try each other's crown jewels <Grin>.
 

kim987s

New member
bugsbugs,

Could you post of picture of your CV 15-35mm finder with the WATE mounted on the camera? Thanks in advance.
 
Top