Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
  

Archive 2014 · To WATE, wait, or forget it

  
 
naturephoto1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


tsdevine wrote:
Sony itself is saying 11/17 on their online store....but you never know. Wish I was going up to PhotoPlus this year, just can't make it work.


Too bad. We could have gone together or met at the show.

Rich



Sep 30, 2014 at 09:37 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


naturephoto1 wrote:
Jordan,

Did Sony have the FE 16-35mm f4 FE lens at Photokina? I am not sure I missed it or not. If not, I doubt that it will be on display at PhotoPlus at the end of October. If it is there, I will try to handle the lens, but my suspicion is that I will not have the opportunity.


Yes, they did. I shot with it a little bit. Unfortunately, I couldn't take samples, though some other people managed to (and they look good). It's not a small lens, though it's not particularly unwieldy. Very fast AF. Has OIS too.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sony1635-1.jpg

http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sony1635-2.jpg



Sep 30, 2014 at 09:43 PM
charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Fred Miranda wrote:
A friend tried his WATE on the A7R and reported that it's not free of issues. There is detail smearing and purple color cast in the corners along with moderate vignetting. Before spending 5K+ in a lens, I advise you to rent it first to see if the IQ is acceptable as a combo.
I would also wait for comparisons and reviews of the new FE 16-35 f/4.


Hi Fred,

I have not seen the detail smearing or purple fringing, particularly for landscape shots you would be using at f/5.6 or 8. I have a suspicion some of the variability is due to adapters. Also I have tried the WATE on the A7s it is amazing!

Hi Rich,

I would strongly suggest to try the FE 16-36/f4 as it is only about 6 weeks away. I think this lens will be a winner on the A7r, and if you decide at some stage to get the A7s, I do think this combo will work really well!
I know many who found the FE 24-70/f4 ordinary on the A7/r, are loving it on the A7s. Go figure!

Solely for AF, I will at later stage get this lens if it good. I know my wife with her A7s would love a lens like this




Sep 30, 2014 at 10:03 PM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


I would venture to guess that the WATE does perform slightly differently on the A7/r/s.

If it performs best on the A7s I would not consider it since I am not happy with a 12MP camera for my own use. If I had both the A7r and the A7s I would not want to restrict such a useful lens to the lowest resolution option.

Also, the price difference is not insignificant - it is rather HUGE. There is a chance that the FE 16-35 will perform better, especially at wider apertures, and that they will be equal at stopped down. For a native lens that has AF, optical stabilization and equal performance - or even better - for a considerably lesser price tag seems a no brainer to me. The form factor of the WATE is excellent but no matter how you swing it you are paying a whole lot of money for a smaller lens that might not even be better. You could get the A7r AND the FE 16-35 lens and even have money left to buy an A7s... ...that is the price difference we are talking here.

Judging by the samples so far from the FE lens it does seem to be excellent even at wide apertures and a viable work horse for the A7 series. Even at that size.

Close focus on the FE is 28cm / 0.28m vs 50cm / 0.5m on the WATE, or 11 inches vs 20 inches. Maybe no too important for some but quite a difference there too.

Let's not forget that in that larger form factor the FE also goes to 35mm. Between 21 and 35mm there is a whole lot of useful range and the option would be to crop the WATE if we are comparing lens against lens for practical use and that would throw away even more resolution of course.

I could not imagine being in such a hurry that I would have to shell out five large ones for a lens that might be surpassed on my platform for a so much less it would be painful.

I would not even consider purchasing the WATE unless I also had an M240 or any other recent M camera, a lens that does double duty on several platforms is much easier to justify. I love (except the price tag) the WATE but even if they were equal performers on the A7 series I can't see myself parting with both one arm and one leg for it.

If I did that I would really need that OIS...



Oct 01, 2014 at 01:00 AM
Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


A very reasonable and well-put analysis, kosmos. I think I agree.


Oct 01, 2014 at 01:32 AM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


I have the WATE which I use on my A7, A7r, M9 and M240. Part of the reason was that I wanted to be able to use the lens on all the above cameras. So far I have not been disappointed. On all the cameras it is sharp to the corners. It's delightfully small. It's also a true zoom and functions as such on the Sony's and N240 with the EVF. I have no issues with smearing or colour shifts on the Sony A7R.

I managed to sell a Leia 21mm Elmarit, CV 21mm f1.8 and a CV 15mm. The WATE outperforms them all. And I know I will be able to easily sell the lens for what I paid for it.

On a Sony body the WATE will focus as close as the new Sony lens if used with the CV helicoid M adaptor.

I would wait to see how the new Sony lens performs. But I can still recommend the WATE without reservation.

Gordon



Oct 01, 2014 at 03:39 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


kosmoskatten wrote:
I would venture to guess that the WATE does perform slightly differently on the A7/r/s.

If it performs best on the A7s I would not consider it since I am not happy with a 12MP camera for my own use. If I had both the A7r and the A7s I would not want to restrict such a useful lens to the lowest resolution option.

Also, the price difference is not insignificant - it is rather HUGE. There is a chance that the FE 16-35 will perform better, especially at wider apertures, and that they will be equal at stopped down.
...Show more

When I look at Rich's position, however, he already has the Contax Zeiss C/Y mount 21 f/2.8. There is very little question that is an excellent lens (and he finds it so), but he wants to move away from it because he finds it too large. Well the FE mount 16-35 f/4 is actually a larger lens. So, in this case, I don't see how the new Sony/Zeiss zoom makes sense. Even if it turns out to be excellent, it seems very likely that Rich will also find the lens too large. We all have different tolerances for size vs. performance, but I am betting if someone isn't happy with the Zeiss C/Y 21 f/2.8 because it is too large and it performance wasn't good enough to make up for the size, then they won't find the performance of the FE 16-35 to be good enough to make up for its size either.

Reasonable people can certainly disagree about that, however, and I can see why kosmoskatten would like the new zoom. What he says is very sensible. My own guess, and it is only a guess at this point, is that the WATE will be only a small amount better than the FE zoom, but I think it will still hold an attraction to some because what we do know is that the FE zoom will be three times the size of the WATE. So, if you want something smaller then the WATE is the only thing for now. I do have hope that Zeiss will come out with a 18 f/4 and/or a 21 f/2.8 Loxia, which ought to be close to the WATE in size (the ZM version are very close in size), at least equal in performance, and much less expensive in price. I see these lenses as a good potential alternative for Rich, but they haven't even been announced yet and likely would not be available for well over a year. So for now if you want very good performance, ultra wide angle and smaller than the C/Y Zeiss 21, then the WATE is the way to go, and I think you will be waiting quite awhile if you wait.



Oct 01, 2014 at 09:21 AM
dbehrens
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


I've had my WATE since this summer and have no issues on the A7r. I'm really impressed by this lens and knowing now what I know I would buy it again without hesitation. I ran test shots at various apertures and distances against my Zeiss 21ZE (and also my two Oly 21's - SC & MC). The WATE outperformed them all. Both the Zeiss & Leica were sharp in the deep corners. The biggest performance advantage against the 21 ZE was the lack of CA in high contrast scenes (I used distant tree branches against bright sky).
Dave



Oct 01, 2014 at 09:23 AM
hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


dbehrens wrote:
I've had my WATE since this summer and have no issues on the A7r. I'm really impressed by this lens and knowing now what I know I would buy it again without hesitation. I ran test shots at various apertures and distances against my Zeiss 21ZE (and also my two Oly 21's - SC & MC). The WATE outperformed them all. Both the Zeiss & Leica were sharp in the deep corners. The biggest performance advantage against the 21 ZE was the lack of CA in high contrast scenes (I used distant tree branches against bright sky).
Dave


I thought the WATE would have way more field curvature in mid frame and edge right. I'm not sure how it would perform on the A7r, but that's how it behaves on the M body. Cause if it actually outperforms the ZE 21, I would get one.



Oct 01, 2014 at 01:18 PM
kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Steve: thanks for being so kind about it but we both know I secretly want a WATE.
Nah, seriously, I am considering the 16-35 as an universal wide angle lens, covering most bases and very handy (or very clumsy, compared to the WATE) for interiors/cityscape.

Reasonably large or not? I don't know. Considering it does cover a lot of usable focal lengths it is a fine compromise: 16/18/21/24/28/35 in one lens is not bad at all. In this regard it is more useful than the WATE. You can argue that you want a faster 35 - but then you need two lenses. If you need a 24 (or a 28) too you need a minimum of three lenses. It does not save space in the camera bag by then.

I also didn't like my Contax Distagon 21/2.8 - comparing it to the Biogon 21/2.8 for G2 (on film though) there was not much to say other than that the Biogon was small, handled backlit situations way better and had better distortion characteristics. I too find the 21/2.8 a little large.


If Zeiss announces a Loxia FE 18/4 I am more than happy to wait for that one. I have (almost) never needed wider than 18mm and loved my little ZM 18/4. With a Loxia 18mm I could keep my Leica R28/2.8 and together they would cover it for me even though I would prefer 18 and 24/25mm. I am not sure I would be trading the Leica R28/2.8 towards the Sony 28/2 - but you never know, it might be a great lens.

Dave: I am glad it works that well for you, sounds like just the ticket! I am a little surprised it seems to have little to no issues on the A7r. When you are talking deep corners, are we talking wide apertures too or stopped down shooting only? I was also under the impression that field curvature is one of the drawbacks of the WATE. Other than that it seems an astounding lens.




Oct 01, 2014 at 01:48 PM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Not to knock the UW's, but you've already got good, low distortion lenses in moderate wide and normal (the LR28 vII just needs a little bump to get rid of the rippling BD, and the LR60 Mac is virtually distortion free). You could pano your way to wider angles. It can be a little more work, but modern software is very good at stitching together some pretty sloppy hand-held panos. For $125, you can pick up Auto Pano Pro from GigaPan, which can chew through almost anything automatically and has fantastic manual controls for fine tuning. In the end, you'll have higher resolution shots with greater depth and far less distortion.

If you're stuck on being able to capture everything with one frame, then I'd take a harder look at the Canon TSE 17. Personally, I would find the perspective control much more useful than being able to change focal lengths.

Just my two cents. Hope it helps.



Oct 01, 2014 at 03:06 PM
naturephoto1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


freaklikeme wrote:
Not to knock the UW's, but you've already got good, low distortion lenses in moderate wide and normal (the LR28 vII just needs a little bump to get rid of the rippling BD, and the LR60 Mac is virtually distortion free). You could pano your way to wider angles. It can be a little more work, but modern software is very good at stitching together some pretty sloppy hand-held panos. For $125, you can pick up Auto Pano Pro from GigaPan, which can chew through almost anything automatically and has fantastic manual controls for fine tuning. In the end, you'll
...Show more

When the opportunity would present itself and the light wasn't changing I could use my RRS MPR-192: 192mm rail and ProMediGear Back to Back clamps and use 11mm of shift for 3 images using my Contax (C//Y) 21mm f2.8 Zeiss Distagon, Leica R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2, and my Leica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit. for stitching. I could also use my Leica R 28mm f2.8 Super Amgulon PC lens stopped down to f11 using shift for 3 images. I could use a combination of PS CS6 and LR5.6 for stitching. If not adequate I could try the software that you recommend. I am not sure how this would work though for night photos. But, I could certainly experiment with it. These would certainly make huge files for the purpose of printing (but would slow down my laptop for processing).

Rich



Oct 01, 2014 at 04:28 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


dbehrens wrote:
I've had my WATE since this summer and have no issues on the A7r. I'm really impressed by this lens and knowing now what I know I would buy it again without hesitation. I ran test shots at various apertures and distances against my Zeiss 21ZE (and also my two Oly 21's - SC & MC). The WATE outperformed them all. Both the Zeiss & Leica were sharp in the deep corners. The biggest performance advantage against the 21 ZE was the lack of CA in high contrast scenes (I used distant tree branches against bright sky).
Dave


Dave,
Since you have the A7R and WATE, could you post some crops of the corners for us to analyze?
Like say, 16mm, 18mm and 21mm at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8?



Oct 01, 2014 at 09:25 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Fred Miranda wrote:
Dave,
Since you have the A7R and WATE, could you post some crops of the corners for us to analyze?
Like say, 16mm, 18mm and 21mm at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8?


and, if we really want to know, the shots should at infinity, with distant details in the corners.

The A7x sensor SA varies tremendously depending on the focus. Infinity is the worst.

as to waiting for the 16-35, just know it is not likely to touch a Leica M digtial--any version-- with a good RF prime, or be a compact package either.

However it may be good enough

Thighslapper has both WATE and SEM 21:
"I have both

The 21/3.4 is miles better

Pictures have an extra punch..... vibrancy and clarity that is quite obvious when you compare the two.......

..... but....... unless you had both you would not be unhappy with the results from the WATE at 21..... they are excellent..... it's just that the 21/3.4 is noticeably better."
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/239851-21mm-f3-4-same-quality-wate.html#post2079999

Many would argue that the 18SEM, ZM18, and SEM21 or 24, are simply the best UWA lenses ever made for FF for colors, clarity and rendering.

The cost of a WATE will get you an M9 and a ZM18.

You still own your A7x!

M9 + SEM21 @f/9.5:

L1020024 by unoh7, on Flickr

F/4.8:

L1020009 by unoh7, on Flickr






Oct 01, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


That 16-35mm looks absolutely huge! Kinda defeats the purpose of a smaller platform camera IMO...


Oct 01, 2014 at 10:54 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


uhoh7 wrote:
The cost of a WATE will get you an M9 and a ZM18.

You still own your A7x!


it's worth more than $6k to me not to have to frame shots with an ultrawide on a rangefinder camera.





Oct 01, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Derek - why? It is not so difficult and I'm sure you could handle it.... The benefit is that you would actually have a UWA lens that performs as it should.


Oct 01, 2014 at 11:06 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Gary Clennan wrote:
Derek - why? It is not so difficult and I'm sure you could handle it.... The benefit is that you would actually have a UWA lens that performs as it should.


i'm very ocd about framing and i hate having to check whether i got the shot after the fact. also, external viewfinders anger me for some reason.

to be honest though, i've never owned a lens wider than 24mm and i've never felt a need for one. i'm totally happy with the current state of a7* ultrawide angle lenses.




Oct 01, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


I suppose if you shoot >24mm, there is really not much issue for you. I consider UWA <21mm and there are not too many smaller lens options for the A7* which perform as they should. This would be frustrating to me as I often shoot 21mm or wider.


Oct 01, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · To WATE, wait, or forget it


Gary Clennan wrote:
That 16-35mm looks absolutely huge! Kinda defeats the purpose of a smaller platform camera IMO...


You too? Seriously, compare to any SLR with a 16-35 f/4 lens (and stabilization, and AF), and I think you'll find the A7 combo significantly lighter and smaller. The only thing comparable really is an A900 or A99 and the ZA 16-35, though it's f/2.8.








Oct 01, 2014 at 11:22 PM
1      
2
       3              6       7       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.