Thanks, it must be my Comcast server gumming up the works ... or my machine.The slide show started in about 5 seconds - which is pretty good. It also started when I clicked on weddings - again, relatively quickly.
-Marc
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!
Thanks, it must be my Comcast server gumming up the works ... or my machine.The slide show started in about 5 seconds - which is pretty good. It also started when I clicked on weddings - again, relatively quickly.
With a bit of luck I might have an ipad to test it on tomorrow!Thanks, it must be my Comcast server gumming up the works ... or my machine.
-Marc
Dave thank you so much for the excellent statement, i agree with every word. actually !! i know exactly now what i want, and how should i proceed. :thumbs:Hi Peter, Marc, Jono, M (and hope I didn't leave anyone out)...
I think we can all agree as Marc said, that it's horses for courses, regarding lens choices and what our expectations and needs are regarding optical performances and parameters set by both the optical enginers that design these lenses as well as optical limitations in any one particular design. There are tradeoffs to be sure, but how big they are depends on our own personal use. Certain distortions found problematic for architecuture use, may be acceptable or hardley noticed in pictorial type imagery, or at the very least exploit its use for creative purposes. Then again it depends what kind of distortion we are talking about, how severe and whether it can be corrected, if necessary. So many factors go into choosing a lens thats right for a particular application.
Marc, I did mis-understand you, as in sending the Leica 18mm back for repair, as opposed for a refund. I can't say whether the Zeiss 18mm for SLR has the same characterisrics as the M version, but the 18mm Zm is a formatable optic and one where distortion is held down to respectable levels compared with its Leica counterpart. As for how it draws, it's farily typical in Zeiss fashion...a bit higher contrast than the Leica, with terrific resolution, basied slightly for the center of the frame.
I agree with Jono, and others that the WATE doesn't have quite the issue with severe distortion as the Leica 18mm does and as such, can be used in a wider set of applications, in my opinion. What distortion it does have, can often be delt with, when required, in post processing. I cannot say the same thing regarding the Leica 18mm.
As for the tradeoffs of the 21 and 24mm Lux's...vs. their f2.8 counterparts...I find them more than acceptable, for as Marc so aptly put it, they were designed for those that require their low light-shallow depth of field characteristics (among others). There are always tradoffs when we talk about ultra fast counterparts to normal speed lenses in a given focal length, especially in the wide angle arena...whether they be optical, size, handling etc. I'm reminded years ago about a optic designed by Pentax...their FA 85mm f1.4 lens. People wondered why between f1.4 and f4, shots taken at mid-infinity distances were very soft, but at close range, had both incredable sharpness and yet asoft diffuse glow, that made it one of the most incredable portrait lenses around...something the optical designer at Pentax stated he strived for when questioned (although Pentax never mentioned the purpose of its design) Desire a better all around 85mm, then their 85mm f1.8 was the ticket. Even the Nikon Af 85mm f1.4, which I used and compared with....couldn't hold a candle to the Penatx FA 85mm f1.4, when it came to portrait work (nor do I believe that optic is the best choice for portrait work). Point is, picking the right lens for its intended purpose and work with it's optical characteristics, exploit them to their best advantage, is how any lens should be used.
Obviously, Marc, Jono and many others here have done just that and their work illustrate the point better than any printed words can. It fact, many of their images not only illustrate, but inspire!
Dave (D&A)
marc,I would have sent that lens right back to Leica.
It reminds me of a job where I had to shoot the dairy section in a Supermarket. We had shoot it in sections to print huge panels pieced together for a trade show display. I used a Contax 645 and Zeiss 35mm ... what a nightmare. We could not get any of the shelves to line up due to horrible wavy distortion.
I don't do any of that stuff with a 35mm camera any longer. It's all a done with a tech camera and Schneider or Rodenstock HR Digital APO lenses.:thumbs: Horses for courses.
I did liked the Nikon 14-24/2.8 a lot. Unfortunately it is huge and unwieldy with protruding front element ... not to mention you had to use it on a Nikon camera with it's CMOS sensor and AA filter which I subjectively dislike. Same for the Nikon 24/1.4 ... doesn't matter how good it is, it fits on a CMOS DSLR.:thumbdown:
Eye of the beholder and all that.
-Marc
Osman, I find the difference very interesting as well, in Mexico we have the words: Artista and Artesano (for Artist & Craftsman). I find myself, more and more, wanting to be an Artesano. I have never quite known how to be an Artist and never really tried.In Turkish the word for art is "Sanat" and the word for craft is "Zanaat"; hence similar, but not the same. I understand that a craftsman aiming to satisfy the customers may not tolerate distortions, whereas it may be unimportant or even pleasing for an artist. I wish I was an artist,
Osman
Gero, a similar situation then. I think it was in 2005, I discovered while touring the fascinating Yucatan Peninsula, that it became more and more difficult for me to distinguish between artists and artisans. In the handcrafts section of the market places we visited, there were always creative people whose output differed from the mainstream in a sense that nearly always appealed to me.Grate thread in general.
Osman, I find the difference very interesting as well, in Mexico we have the words: Artista and Artesano (for Artist & Craftsman). I find myself, more and more, wanting to be an Artesano. I have never quite known how to be an Artist and never really tried.
you are welcomed my friendThank you Mohammad, this is very informative reading.
Osman
There is an article in the July LFI 2009 issue comparing 7 ASPH WA lenses on the M7 and the M8: WATE, 18mm, 21mm Lux and 21mm Elmarit, 24mm Lux, 24mm Elmarit and 24mm Elmar. I often see vignetting, especially on the Lux lenses. One possiblity I've toyed with is to use the lenses on film (trying very hard to keep everything digital).
The Nikon WAs are really good, no issues with the 14-24, 16-35 and even the 24 f/1.4.
Currently I don't have an M9, only film bodies and M8's, but I've shot with the WATE and 21 Summilux as well as the Elmarit on the M9. I have tried the 18 on the M9.
When the 21 Elmarit ASPH came out, I got one of the first ones and have used it a lot; it largely replaced my Super Angulon. As my 'bonus' lens with the M8 I got the WATE which has served me well in that capacity, and after I saw the 21 Summilux at last Photokina I ordered one the day I came home.
I do architectural photography and wideangles are what I use most of the time. 21mm is an importan focal length for me. 24 on M's is of no interest.
In practice, the Elmarit is extremely close to the Summilux stopped down, and while the weight is more the size difference isn't that great, at least in my use. Stop it down one more stop and you have the performance of the WATE. Yes, there are slight differences, as in the Elmarit having more vignetting at f/2.8 than the Summilux, but overall the only differences are weight, size (to a lesser degree) and cost. And versatility and speed.
As far as the usage goes, I really only use the WATE at 16 or 21. The 18 has a very slight advantage in performance over the WATE, but it is slight, and the versatility of the WATE makes it much more appealing.
As others have mentioned, you should only get the 21 Summilux if you are really sure you need the speed, because once you stop down to f/2.8, or even more so f/4 you'll have a hard time noticing the difference in a print.
At the moment I still have the S-A, the CV 21 and the three lenses mentioned. I'll be selling the Elmarit and probably the CV, because even though it's tiny that's not enough to entice me to take it along most days as it's just not as good. The S-A has a special look that I have gotten used to and I will continue to use it on film bodies with Tri-X. Of the WATE and the Summilux, the 'lux gets the most use but the WATE comes along when there's more light. Sometimes I take both.
Henning
I have owned the 21mm Summilux and the 21mm Elmarit in the past, but strangely, I find the 21mm Super-Elmar-M (f/3.4) to be the best 21mm Leica ever made.Many thanks for the detailed and insightful response. I'm in the market for a wide angle and have been researching the 21 lux v WATE and found your observations very helpful.