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.I respectfully beg to differ. I find 35mm Panorama's with the M9 too restricted in height.
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!
No need for respect . I actually haven't tried panoramas with the WATE . . .your's have inspired me to give it a go.I respectfully beg to differ. I find 35mm Panorama's with the M9 too restricted in height.
You will not be disappointed: I had them printed: great!No need for respect . I actually haven't tried panoramas with the WATE . . .your's have inspired me to give it a go.
mohammad,Peter what is your thought on the following ?
now! lets say that i don't need to shoot fast ( i don't need the 1.4)
both 50 f/2 cron and 21 f/2.8 elmarit are sharper, lighter, cheaper, and more compact than 50 and 21 lux
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
Thank you so much peter, but why do you prefer the zeiss biogon 21 f2.8 over the elmerit 21mm ?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
Mohammad,...................
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:
less distorsion, at least as sharp and much less expensive.Thank you so much peter, but why do you prefer the zeiss biogon 21 f2.8 over the elmerit 21mm ?
cheers!
M
dave,>>>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)
Can you ... or someone else, please elaborate on what you folks specifically mean by "distortion?"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
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
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
jono,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:
Hi Peterjono,
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
I would have sent that lens right back to Leica.