I don't see much info on this lens throughout the forum (maybe I'm not looking in the right area?) and was considering getting this WATE lens for interior design/landscape photography opposed to one of these dedicated ultra-wide lenses:
I picked up one late spring/early summer. I had been searching for a 18mm Elmar for a long time, which I now see several available. I thought about the 21SEM but given I enjoy my Elmar 24 immensely I felt the 21 SEM was too close to the 24 for landscape photography.
I really like my WATE. I use it often hiking in the mountains and as we'll as a few times doing walkabouts in urban environments. I mainly shoot it at F8 on my M10M. It pairs nicely with my 24. I find I typically use the 16 and 18 focal lengths more often.
I had the Voigtlander 15/f4.5 MKII for a few years although I liked it I was never satisfied with the edges and it had the tint issue but since I only used the Monochrom it wasn't an issue. I understand that the MKIII fixes the tint issue.
I thought about the Zeiss 15 a few times as I enjoy Zeiss lenses on my DSLR but the bulkiness and the vignetting which can be overcome with the Zeiss filter and it is a very sharp contrasty lens but even with my DSLR I rarely shoot 15mm I opted to not pursue it.
The oddity for myself since I got the WATE I have rarely attached my EVF to my M10M. I have to reshoot a scene a few times but I think since I use it most often for landscape shots the need for critical framing is less for me.
The one thought that stands out to me looking at your profile and mention of you shoot 28mm a lot and you don't seem to have anything wider you shot ultrawides before? I only mention this as shooting ultrawides gives a lot different image than a 28. I can see the use for you on interior shots though landscapes under 21mm is a lot different than one may expect. The first landscape shots I took with the voigtlander looked nothing like I imagined, In time I learned the impacts of utlrawide on an image and how to shoot with it but it was a learning process.
PS: the red ring is hidden under the hood. Remove the hood and you see the ring.
If for interior design/architecture as well as landscape architecture, it will do the job, if you need something that wide. The benefit of the WATE is that unlike the MATE, it apparently can be used as a true zoom lens, so it offers that flexibility. And that is basically its major advantage over any prime - flexibility. The primes will be somewhat sharper, though you'll likely stop down to at least f/8 where apparently the WATE is best. Lenses like the Leica 21/3.4 will be more compact and would be a better purchase over the 21/2.8.
The WATE was somewhat popular for a short while for adapting to Sony mirrorless due to it behaving well with the Sony sensor stack.
I never bought one, rather went the more economical route with the VM15/4.5 III, which is decent. It really depends on you, but I find the widest I usually go is 21mm, and for that use the 21/3.4 with zero complaints.
When I bought my WATE it was about half the price they are now. I suppose I’ve had it for around a decade. It ranges from being very good to excellent around f8. It is a true zoom and can be used in between the click stops.
The reason I’ve stuck with the WATE instead of the more exotic ultra wides is that I don’t shoot ultra wide enough to justify carrying them. Some of the newer specialised lenses outperform the WATE at all apertures and if you shoot ultra wide a lot I’d go that route. If you shoot ultra wide occasionally and you want some flexibility it’s a great little lens. A WATE, 28, 50 and 90 is a tiny but flexible kit.
Note that the optional filter adaptor ring is required to shoot with filters (67mm) It doesn’t have a standard filter ring. All WATE’s have the red ring which is a reverse thread for the hood or filter adaptor. It’s red to remind you to NEVER put the lens front down without the hood or filter adaptor attached.
When I bought my WATE it was about half the price they are now. I suppose I’ve had it for around a decade. It ranges from being very good to excellent around f8. It is a true zoom and can be used in between the click stops.
The reason I’ve stuck with the WATE instead of the more exotic ultra wides is that I don’t shoot ultra wide enough to justify carrying them. Some of the newer specialised lenses outperform the WATE at all apertures and if you shoot ultra wide a lot I’d go that route. If you shoot ultra wide occasionally and you want some flexibility it’s a great little lens. A WATE, 28, 50 and 90 is a tiny but flexible kit.
Note that the optional filter adaptor ring is required to shoot with filters (67mm) It doesn’t have a standard filter ring. All WATE’s have the red ring which is a reverse thread for the hood or filter adaptor. It’s red to remind you to NEVER put the lens front down without the hood or filter adaptor attached.
I have had the WATE since soon after purchasing my A7r camera. It was the best UW angle lens to work with the camera at the time. Now I use the lens with my Sony A7rII Kolari Vision UT sensor modified camera and it is basically a permanent part of my normal kit that I carry. It is relatively small and light and performs quite well and others have mentioned, I normally use f8 for the lens. I permantenly have the Leica 67mm filter adapter for the lens attached (which I have used gaffers tape to cover the openings since I am not using it with an M-body) with a B+W 67mm XS-Pro UV Haze MRC-Nano 010M Filter to protect the lens front element and a Leica R 67mm pinch lens cap. Like Gordon (flash) I have not opted for other newer lenses covering this range because as mentioned the lens with the adapter useds 67mm filters while the other lenses require very large filters and holders and the lens is smaller and more compact than the zooms.
My basic kit like Gordon is normally WATE, CV 28mm f2 Ultron II VM, CV 50mm f2 Apo-Lanthar Asph E mount (on my Sony A1) and wither my Zeiss 85mm f4 Tele-Tessar ZM or my CV 90mm f2.8 Apo-Skopar VM lens.
If I need to go wider, I use what had been Fred's (Fred Miranda) CV 12mm f5.6 UW Heliar Asph III VM which SK Grimes modified to accept 62mm filters.
burningheart wrote:
The one thought that stands out to me looking at your profile and mention of you shoot 28mm a lot and you don't seem to have anything wider you shot ultrawides before? I only mention this as shooting ultrawides gives a lot different image than a 28. I can see the use for you on interior shots though landscapes under 21mm is a lot different than one may expect. The first landscape shots I took with the voigtlander looked nothing like I imagined, In time I learned the impacts of utlrawide on an image and how to shoot with it but it was a learning process.
PS: the red ring is hidden under the hood. Remove the hood and you see the ring....Show more →
Back when I shot with Nikon I had a pair of d700's and 17-35/2.8 and loved it. When I decided to swap everything over to Leica I got a M10P and a Q and loved the Q so much I upgraded it to the Q2 and decided that will probably be as wide as I go for the most part. But I want to take a crack at interior/landscape/architecture with my M10 body which I only own 35-50-90 lenses.
On paper I always found this is a great lens so I bought one this year.
It was too decentered to keep it but even apart from that it didn't knock it ouf of the park for me.
Like most UWA zooms it isn't that great at the long end, so at 21mm the VM 21mm 3.5 was contrastier and offering better resolution.
Distortion is also a bit nasty, so better keep track of what focal length you were using to correct it properly in post.
While being small for an UWA zoom it is also big for an M-mount lens.
I didn't bother trying to find a "perfect sample" (if such a thing exists when it comes to zoom lenses) and rather stick with the more compact primes.
I've owned a couple copies of this lens in the past. None was well centered either.
I found that it performed well at 16mm but it's not so great at 21mm. I no longer have the test shots but my Voigtlander 15/4.5 III was capable of higher resolution and contrast.
At one point, I compared it to the Loxia 21/2.8 and the Zeiss outperformed it significantly, especially off-axis.
rscheffler wrote:
Lenses like the Leica 21/3.4 will be more compact and would be a better purchase over the 21/2.8.
mightbenow wrote:
Thanks, I'll give that lens a look, I like how compact it is.
It's a great lens and compares favorably against the likes of the Loxia 21/2.8 mentioned by Fred, and for a current Leica lens, is a relative bargain. On paper it outperforms the VM21/3.5, as also confirmed by some here, though in real world use, might not be that big a difference.
TBH, for the price of the WATE, if I was doing interiors, I'd get a Canon camera of some sort (or a Sony mirrorless) and the 17 and 24 tilt-shift lenses. And the 1.4x TC, which will work with both, with shift. But yeah, you can do a lot of those corrections in post, to varying degrees of success. I'd rather get it more or less right in-camera.
Its data sheet is not too impressive when compared with the in-house competition in the 260 gram 21mm and 24mm SEMs. Outers will never be great below f8, and by then you lose the great centre image quality at f4. And wider focal lengths reveal plenty of distortion.
You really need to know that the zoom range convenience suits you better than the better fixed FLs, particularly the SEM 21/3.4 which is about as good as it gets even today, for a small 21mm lens. Very steady roll-off and no Loxia 21mm style curvature (as a lens most know). Ken has the (very good) MTF for it on this page:
My favorite of the M-mount UWAs is the ZM Distagon 18/4. Distortion's low but, like with all Zeiss wides, a little complex. Flare resistance is above average and f/5.6 is the across-the-frame sweet spot.
Perhaps I have a better copy of a WATE than those reported by Bastian and Fred. I believe that I have a good copy, but I am not sure it is totally centered as I never tested the lens as closely as Fred, and this may not be quite what Fred has commented about for the performance of the lens. Yes the lens is supposed to have the the best performance at 16mm and weakest at 21mm. But, I have found good performance for the lens at f8 at 21mm.
Below are an image taken of Dark Hollow Falls, Shenandoah, NP at 18mm, ISO 50, lens set to f8 for 1/5 second and tripod mounted with my stock A7r camera taken October 19, 2015. The image has been processed in Lightroom, but with what I have learned since, could improve the output with the newest form of Lightroom and its tools. The first image is the full frame and the others are images at 100% near center and other points and the 4 corners of the image.
Be aware, that the WATE performs even better on my Kolari Vision Ultra Thin Sensor modified A7rII camera.
Another option to possibly consider the Laowa 20mm f4 Shift lens in different mounts that splits the difference between the Canon 17mm and 24mm lenses. I know that Bastian has his feeling regarding the lens and would suggest even a wider angle lens like the Laowa 9mm lens and not bother with a shift or tilt/shift lens. My copy of the lens is in the Canon EF mount that I can share on my Cambo Actus Mini camera with my Sony bodies and with an adapter can use directly on my Sony bodies.
