• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Leica WATE on the Sony a7R

Leica WATE on the Sony a7R

December 20, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

There’s been some interest in how the Leica 16/18/21 Tri Elmar ASPH  — aka the WATE, for Wide Angle Tri-Elmar — performs on the Sony a7R. Because it is designed with its exit pupil quite a ways from the sensor plane, there is reason to suspect that it should work well on the a7R.

The results are presented uncorrected by Adobe Flat Field. Here’s an image of the ExpoDIsc at 16mm and f/4, to give you an idea of falloff and color cast:

_DSC2443

Oops, what’s that light patch in the upper left? That can’t be right! It isn’t. It’s what happens when light leaks through the cutout in the lens hood for viewfinder clearance. To use the ExpoDisc in the field, you should cover the hole with gaffer tape; you don’t need it since the a7R has no optical finder.

With a piece of black gaffer tape in place, here’s the ExpoDisc at f/4 and 16mm:

_DSC2462

f/4 and 18mm:

_DSC2463

f/4 and 21mm:

_DSC2464

Here’s the scene at f/8 and 16mm:

_DSC2434

At f/8 and 18mm:

_DSC2446

And at f/8 and 21mm:

_DSC2457

There’s some falloff, but it looks about the same as on the M240. The corner color cast issues are minimal. Because there are three focal lengths to test, there are a lot of pictures to look at. For those of you who would prefer to just cut to the chase, here is my description of what I found.

At 16mm in the center, the image is pretty darned crisp at f/4, and improves at f/5.6; f/8 is about the same, f/11 is about the same as f/4, and f/16 is soft because of diffraction.

18 mm at f/4 is a tad soft in the center, but there’s a big jump in crispness at f/5.6, and the image is really quite nice there. f/8 is about the same as f/5.6, f/11 is a hair softer, and f/16 is really soft.

21 mm at f/4 is a softer in the center than at 18mm, and there’s that big jump in crispness at f/5.6, and the image is good there. f/8 is a little sharper than f/5.6, f/11 is softer, and f/16 is really soft.

At 16 mm in the upper left corner, there’s just a hint of that smeared look, but the general soft look is what I’ve seen with this lens on the M240. f/5.6 brings a big improvement, f/8 is quite nice, f/11 is softening up, and f/16 is soft.

At 18 mm in the upper left corner, there’s even less of the smeared look, but the general soft look is what I’ve seen with this lens on the M240. f/5.6 brings a marked improvement, but it takes f/8 to get good quality. f/11 is softening up, and f/16 is soft.

At 21 mm in the upper left corner, there’s no smearing, but it’s a little soft. f/5.6 brings some improvement, and f/8 is quite good. f/11 is close to f/8, and f/16 is soft.

It looks like f/8 is the best all-around aperture, and it also looks like this lens is a good match for the a7R; there’s a tiny bit of smearing at f/4, but that’s not an aperture where the lens performs well at the edges anyway.

Here is the Photoshop stack for the center images.

Here is the Photoshop stack for the upper left images.

Next post: JPEGs of selected focal lengths and aperture from this series.

The Last Word

← Controlling for shutter slap Leica WATE on the Sony a7R — crops →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.