Review - Laowa 12mm f/2.8 on 5DS R (that was fast!)
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Wow, didn't realize the 11-24 is that bad in the corners (yes, I know 11mm is... challenging, optically - and the 5Ds of course magnifies the difference).
The disparity between center and corner sharpness at f/2.8 makes this not-so-good for astro (I'd like to see how it handles coma, though). For f/8 uses, though... wow.
The disparity between center and corner sharpness at f/2.8 makes this not-so-good for astro (I'd like to see how it handles coma, though). For f/8 uses, though... wow.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Please bare in in mine that Photozone usually does it's lens reviews based on only one lens copy. This Laowa is a prototype and could be better than lenses in production. Conversely, the Canon lens could easily be out of spec.
Besides...who uses an 11mm or 12mm wide open?
Besides...who uses an 11mm or 12mm wide open?
Upvote
0
keithcooper
Canon Rumors Premium
I strongly suspect that this is the very same lens I reviewed at:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/laowa_12mm_f2-8.html
I sent it on to Germany a few days ago ;-)
As such, I'd note their observation about how close they had to place the target to measure things.
Given my experience of using that same lens for architectural photos and making a series of 22" x 33" prints, I'm expecting to see better distortion and resolution performance in testing that doesn't need the lens focusing close.
The broad sweep of their findings matches my own (outdoor photo) based comparisons with the 11-24 and looking at results with my 5Ds. The 12mm is very good, but the 11-24 easily outperforms the 12mm in some areas (not just cost and weight ;-)
I'm always wary of, but still interested in, figures from such testing.
However ... such numbers are all too easily taken out of context, ignoring test conditions and methodology, and used to make essentially meaningless comparisons between lenses.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/laowa_12mm_f2-8.html
I sent it on to Germany a few days ago ;-)
As such, I'd note their observation about how close they had to place the target to measure things.
Given my experience of using that same lens for architectural photos and making a series of 22" x 33" prints, I'm expecting to see better distortion and resolution performance in testing that doesn't need the lens focusing close.
The broad sweep of their findings matches my own (outdoor photo) based comparisons with the 11-24 and looking at results with my 5Ds. The 12mm is very good, but the 11-24 easily outperforms the 12mm in some areas (not just cost and weight ;-)
I'm always wary of, but still interested in, figures from such testing.
However ... such numbers are all too easily taken out of context, ignoring test conditions and methodology, and used to make essentially meaningless comparisons between lenses.
Upvote
0
keithcooper
Canon Rumors Premium
dilbert said:
Not unless someone gives me a Sony camera to test it with I'm afraid :-(
The new kit budget is still recovering from the 5Ds and EF11-24 last year ;-)
Upvote
0
The corner numbers looks way lower than what I would expect based on seeing sample images from the 11-24 at 11mm. The chart makes them look horrible!
I wonder if they are having to test at too close of a distance which is causing field curvature issues or MFD issues?
I wonder if they are having to test at too close of a distance which is causing field curvature issues or MFD issues?
Upvote
0
photojoern.de
See more in http://photojoern.de
Interesting lens for night and star photography. Maybe even for professional interior design photography. For landscape I stick with my Canon L 16-35mm f4 IS. Great lens, crisp sharp even in the corners and on a 50MP 5 DSR.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
photojoern.de said:
It's an architecture lens primarily (sorry for the pun). Sure you can use it to shoot ultra wide star-scapes....but that's not what it was made for.
Upvote
0
Interesting review. I've found the 11-24mm quite sharp. I'm surprised it surpasses that.
The 11-24 is more flexible.
The big bulbous front makes me nervous and its heavy.
I love wide angle though and the 11-24 gives you shots you just can't get otherwise (except maybe now with the Laowa)
For the Laowa 12mm manual focus should work out fine in most cases.
The 11-24 is more flexible.
The big bulbous front makes me nervous and its heavy.
I love wide angle though and the 11-24 gives you shots you just can't get otherwise (except maybe now with the Laowa)
For the Laowa 12mm manual focus should work out fine in most cases.
Upvote
0
keithcooper
Canon Rumors Premium
Hector1970 said:
The Laowa is very sharp when stopped down a bit - the style of coma when wide open may not work so well for astro uses, but for my day and dusk shots of buildings it was excellent
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
keithcooper said:
Hi Keith, did you try to use front screw in filters on it? It's one of the big advantages over the Canon zoom for landscape photographers. Apart from the other advantages, like cost and size. I'm not too fussed with fact that it's a prime. I have lenses like the TS-e 17L, 16-35IIL and 8-15L fisheye. So this prime would sit in my bag very nicely and compliment the wide options I already have.
Upvote
0
keithcooper
Canon Rumors Premium
GMCPhotographics said:
No, they offered to send the filter holder, but I don't use filters on any of my wide lenses, so didn't have any to test it with.
Upvote
0
