Will be announced next week:
http://photorumors.com/2016/07/24/laowa-zero-d-12mm-f2-8-distortion-free-lens-to-be-announced-next-week/
http://photorumors.com/2016/07/24/laowa-zero-d-12mm-f2-8-distortion-free-lens-to-be-announced-next-week/
New Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-Distortion
- Thread starter JumboShrimp
- Start date
Full review now at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/laowa_12mm_f2-8.html
It's a pre production lens, but I've still got it here if anyone has any questions
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/laowa_12mm_f2-8.html
It's a pre production lens, but I've still got it here if anyone has any questions
Upvote
0
Mancubus said:
No - the low distortion refers to it being a rectilinear lens
using such a lens for people will need additional processing - the stretching you refer to is a consequence of the very wide angle.
See here for how I'd fix it at 14mm
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/dxo_viewpoint2.html
Upvote
0
If this thing is in the same price range as their other lenses ($399-699), I will be picking one up immediately.
Upvote
0
No, it means the opposite. An ultra-wide angle lens with zero distortion will make straight lines appear straight, but makes people in the corners look very stretched. In a horizontal photo people in the outer thirds will look fatter. In a vertical photo they will look taller. If using this lens for pictures of people, you will have to make some creative decisions and will have to be very conscious of its effects. You may decide to keep all people near the center of the frame. Or you may decide to have them rather extremely distorted near the edges. If you use this lens for group shots, you may be able to use software to correct the stretched out appearance of people in the outer thirds.Mancubus said:
Upvote
0
Thanks for your review Keith. The Canon 11-24L is the gold standard, but it's a large and uber-expensive lens. This little 12mm might be the ticket for an ultra wide that compliments a 16-35 / fisheye / Ts-e 17L set up. It won't take up too much space or weight in one's camera bag. One of the things that I used to really like about the Sigma 12-24mm mkI was the way that straight lines stayed straight. Unfortunately it was dogged by poor quality control, some bad vignetting and soft corners. But at f16, it was passable....and it gave such a great look on the world.
As much as i'd like the Canon 11-24L...at the moment, I don't need that angle of view at that cost. But this little Laowa 12mm looks like a little gem. What size filters does it need for full frame coverage?
As much as i'd like the Canon 11-24L...at the moment, I don't need that angle of view at that cost. But this little Laowa 12mm looks like a little gem. What size filters does it need for full frame coverage?
Upvote
0
keithcooper said:
Most photographers don't realize that very few wide lenses are fully rectilinear corrected. The lens designers usually dial in a certain amount of barrel distortion to help make the lens more versatile.Only lenses that are designed for architecture are fully corrected, so that straight lines stay straight. But the problem is that circles become egg shaped on a fully corrected rectilinear wide lens. So the lens designers dial in an amount of friendly barrel distortion to counteract the circles to egg issues (group shots are the most common reason). Some times the lens designer gives the lens an extra 1/2 mm of wide focal length so the user can correct it in Photoshop at their pleasure and still keep the designated focal length. So I often chuckle to my self when reading lens review web sites that complain about barrel distortion in wide lenses as a bad thing. If we compare a fish eye, which is the opposite of a rectilinear corrected lens, circles stay circular but straight lines become curves. I really like the way the Canon 16-35mm treads a really well thought out middle ground to get a happy medium. But to get the best IQ, a 16-35mm is needed along with a Ts-e 17, a 8-15L and a 12mm to cover all eventualities. I've never found a wide lens that can "do it all". So I've always needed multiple options at the wide end depending on what I'm shooting and what I'm truing to achieve.
Ever since the mighty but flawed Sigma 12-24mm mkI was launched I've wanted a really good fully corrected (architectural use) 12mm prime. It's a pity Canon didn't make it first.
Upvote
0
"They’re claiming this to be the worlds widest f/2.8 lens."
Actually, that claim belongs to the Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 lens. But I'm assuming they mean world's widest full-frame f/2.8 lens.
Actually, that claim belongs to the Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 lens. But I'm assuming they mean world's widest full-frame f/2.8 lens.
Upvote
0
Pricing
I believe the initial pricing you're looking for will be in their KS program - however I've no other commercial info on the product, I was just lucky enough to get to try it out ;-)
The link I have is:
http://www.kickstarter.com/profile/laowa/
I believe it's active later this week?
I believe the initial pricing you're looking for will be in their KS program - however I've no other commercial info on the product, I was just lucky enough to get to try it out ;-)
The link I have is:
http://www.kickstarter.com/profile/laowa/
I believe it's active later this week?
Upvote
0
I've really enjoyed my Rokinon 14mm rectilnear lens for many years now, almost as long as I've had my 5D3 when it came out....<P>
Bang for the buck, the little Rokinon has really been a workhorse lens for me when I needed a really nice wide lens...<P>
The newer models of the Rokinon I think have a focus assist chip in them, but I've not seen that in action.
I'm wondering how this new one will compare...?
I think I got my Rokinon on some kind of Social Living deal for under or about at $200 back in the day.....
cayenne
Bang for the buck, the little Rokinon has really been a workhorse lens for me when I needed a really nice wide lens...<P>
The newer models of the Rokinon I think have a focus assist chip in them, but I've not seen that in action.
I'm wondering how this new one will compare...?
I think I got my Rokinon on some kind of Social Living deal for under or about at $200 back in the day.....
cayenne
Upvote
0
cayenne said:
No chip in this one, but in terms of image quality I feel it bests the Samyang.
I have now reviewed both if you're interested. You won't get the 12mm at anything near that price though!
As someone doing a fair bit of architectural work, the low distortion of the 12mm works well, but I do remember taking a lot of Samyang shots where it didn't show ... but where it did show, it was very obvious and correcting it took the effective focal length (after crop) to 15/16mm
Upvote
0
I'm guessing there also looking to target people who own a 16-35mm lens and didn't feel that the Samyang at 14mm was quite wide enough to justify another purchase. For more distant landscape I might stick with stitching as the extra resolution is often needed for panoramic prints but I'm tempted for things like tree shots where its often not and stitching can be more difficult.
It will be interesting to see what happens with filters, I take it theres no built in thread but the removable hood does both mean filters can get closer to the lens(maybe making 100mm filters useable?) plus the hood attachment itself could be used for a filter holder rather than one of those larger more expensive ring like attachments for other bulb UWAs.
It will be interesting to see what happens with filters, I take it theres no built in thread but the removable hood does both mean filters can get closer to the lens(maybe making 100mm filters useable?) plus the hood attachment itself could be used for a filter holder rather than one of those larger more expensive ring like attachments for other bulb UWAs.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
