I bought the WATE when there really were no options for UWA thinking all I need to do is wait for the native lens options and then I'll recoup my investment. But I'm not convinced I want to give it up! There is just too much I love about the Leica rendering and colors. And I think the deal maker for me is how it can bring out details in the sky that even I was not seeing with my eyes. Oh well - C'est la vie!
Dave
I love my WATE as well. In comparison to B18/2.8 and L21/2.8, it may give up a bit of corner sharpness but it was by no mean unacceptable. The overall look is very special. L21/2.8 is also special in its own way, I suppose and B18/2.8 really does not do anything much wrong and is technically sharper corner to corner but just lack a little something in comparison. Beside, I get 16mm which surprisingly I used quite a bit more than I thought I would. By the way, since I got the WATE, my CV 15/4.5 iii M mount version does not really get much use now a day. When I go trekking, it will be hard to choose, WATE or L21/2.8 or B18/2.8, take two or take the whole lot. I supposed I would need to take at least 2 as I want to do a little astro as well but then what is a few more hundred grams to take all three
Schlotkins wrote:
so here's a question for the group... which "good" lenses have the least amount of field curvature? Can you tell from the MTF graphs?
EDIT:
I remember Roger did some tests on Canon and Nikon zooms. the Canon 24-70 2.8 II has a ridiculously flat field.
Macro lenses typically have a very flat field and you can typically tell from the MTF charts--the graphs will be flat all the way across the chart. Here is the chart for the Zeiss Milvus 100 f/2 Makro:
suteetat wrote:
I love my WATE as well. In comparison to B18/2.8 and L21/2.8, it may give up a bit of corner sharpness but it was by no mean unacceptable. The overall look is very special. L21/2.8 is also special in its own way, I suppose and B18/2.8 really does not do anything much wrong and is technically sharper corner to corner but just lack a little something in comparison. Beside, I get 16mm which surprisingly I used quite a bit more than I thought I would. By the way, since I got the WATE, my CV 15/4.5 iii M mount version does not really get much use now a day. When I go trekking, it will be hard to choose, WATE or L21/2.8 or B18/2.8, take two or take the whole lot. I supposed I would need to take at least 2 as I want to do a little astro as well but then what is a few more hundred grams to take all three ...Show more →
It really depends on the aperture used. If using the WATE solely at f/8 on the A7RII for landscapes, it's just as good if not better than the Loxia 21, Batis 18 and CV 15III even towards the extreme edges. (see link below)
I would only choose the new Batis 18/2.8 and Loxia 21/2.8 if you really need the performance from f/4 until f/5.6.
I'm keeping my Loxia 21/2.8 for situations I need wider apertures.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It really depends on the aperture used. If using the WATE solely at f/8 on the A7RII for landscapes, it's just as good if not better than the Loxia 21, Batis 18 and CV 15III even towards the extreme edges. (see link below)
I would only choose the new Batis 18/2.8 and Loxia 21/2.8 if you really need the performance from f/4 until f/5.6.
I'm keeping my Loxia 21/2.8 for situations I need wider apertures.
Fred, thanks for the link, I missed that one. I should really have said not as sharp corner to corner wide open. As my own testing against B18 also showed that WATE catched up in thecorner very nicely by F8 as well in B18 thread. Yes, I usually bring my WATE along as I really like its rendering very much. I am also waiting for CV 10 or 12 E mount and will most likely trade my CV 15 iii for one of those two. As of now, I am keeping both B18 and L21. I love L21 more than B18 but for milky way shots, sometimes L21 is not quite wide enough.
Yesterday I was able to go out and test my Batis 18mm. From the results I've seen so far with my copy of the lens, I think it's very good! I would say it's a great lens! It's not on Loxia 21mm level, that lens is in a whole different class. When we get better weather in NYC I will test it agains the Loxia 21mm but for now here are some pics of the Batis 18mm you can judge for yourself.
suteetat wrote:
Fred, thanks for the link, I missed that one. I should really have said not as sharp corner to corner wide open. As my own testing against B18 also showed that WATE catched up in thecorner very nicely by F8 as well in B18 thread. Yes, I usually bring my WATE along as I really like its rendering very much. I am also waiting for CV 10 or 12 E mount and will most likely trade my CV 15 iii for one of those two. As of now, I am keeping both B18 and L21. I love L21 more than B18 but for milky way shots, sometimes L21 is not quite wide enough.
This is where I'm at as well. I think I prefer the Loxia in just about every category (size, focus, filter thread, colors), but 18mm vs 21mm is a BIG difference in nightscapes, especially when my other astro lens is the 28/2.
Vcize wrote:
This is where I'm at as well. I think I prefer the Loxia in just about every category (size, focus, filter thread, colors), but 18mm vs 21mm is a BIG difference in nightscapes, especially when my other astro lens is the 28/2.
Yes, for nightscape, I think 21mm is perfectly ok for milky way if it is close to the horizon or if you are only taking picture of the milky way in the middle of the sky with no foreground. Otherwise, you really need at least 18mm.
15mm is a bit too wide sometimes unless you are really in an absolutely dark place where you see a lot more than just
the central part of the Milky Way (which in Thailand is rather hard to do but I may have a chance to do some Milky Way shots in August in a more ideal location if weather cooperate).
Gary Clennan wrote:
I find 14mm to be the perfect FL for milky way shots - 16mm can feel cramped at times...
Same here. I like having 14 or 15 and 21. Both at f/2.8.
I was using the Distagon 15/2.8 and Loxia 21/2.8 for milky way shooting. I am now considering adding the new Samyang 14/2.8 E-mount to go with my Loxia 21.
The Samyang 24mm f/1.4 is an awesome night lens but it often feels too long. The Loxia 21 is a a good smaller option but I think it's better on the A7S than an A7R model.
Samyang 14 is very good .
My new favorite night lens is the Samyang 12mm fisheye!! Put that on the A7S and the results are wow!
I also prefer wider in astro. I currently carry an adapted Nikon 14-24 for astro which I love but I'm getting tired of lugging around the size/weight on trips and still having to either bring other wide angle landscape lenses or a large expensive filter set as well. Kind of defeats the purpose of why I jumped into the Sony mirrorless line in the first place.
Batis 18 + Sony 28 seems like a decent alternative that could work for both astro and daytime/golden hour and use filters. 18mm would be wide enough for some shots and in others would require less stitching than something narrower. 21 + 28 for astro is really pushing it and I think would leave me wanting more, though that smaller filter thread on the Loxia and the manual focus ring (for checking that you haven't accidentally bumped the focus since refocusing at night can be time consuming) are both really appealing.
The current Samyang 14 is fairly large/heavy for an FE lens and has wicked distortion that is not easy to correct unless you have a really simple composition. It will be interesting to see how the new 14/2.8, the Irix 15/2.4, and the Laowa 12/2.8 all fare in these areas. They'll almost surely be bigger/heavier than the Batis just due to physics, but if they can get it somewhat close it would be really tempting to do one of those plus the Loxia instead of the Batis plus Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Same here. I like having 14 or 15 and 21. Both at f/2.8.
I was using the Distagon 15/2.8 and Loxia 21/2.8 for milky way shooting. I am now considering adding the new Samyang 14/2.8 E-mount to go with my Loxia 21.
I tried 2 samples of e-mount 14/2.8 samyang two years ago and neither could focus to infinity. No matter where I set the focus. Performance was total cr*p. I had better luck with nikon mount version and novoflex adapter.
Don't throw away your 15mm distagon...it totally smacks samyang in the head wide open. Zeiss draws night sky beautifully.
Even though I have a great 15 and 21 I am thinking about buying this but more for reportage work. This and the 24-70 would be a nice AF combo. Last night I shot a event with the A6300 first with the Loxia 21 great but needed to be wider plus tough with manual. Than the 24-70 on the A6300 again needed to be wider but the AF worked a charm. A 18 would have done the trick. So this is a add not sell anything to get it. Be nice just to carry the 18,24-70 and 85 won and done on this PR stuff, plus it's fast. I could use it today and tonight too. Have to figure this budget wise. I would leave the 15 and 21 home on this type of work, maybe just add my 35 1.7 as backup and a fast lens. It's extremely small and light too
There is just too much I love about the Leica rendering and colors. And I think the deal maker for me is how it can bring out details in the sky that even I was not seeing with my eyes. Oh well - C'est la vie!
