Venus Optics will launch an RF 12-24mm f/5.6 lens in 2021

Nemorino

EOS R
Aug 29, 2020
106
126
I don’t know, one stop is a lot. Otherwise why bother getting an f2.8 rather than a 4. Or a 50 1.4 rather than an f2. I could go on. Yes, one stop is a lot.
Yes, You are right but have a look at the dimensions and compare a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with this lens:
Sigma φ102x131,5mm , Laowa φ69.4 × 74mm That is a lot!
Sigma 1150g, Laowa 497g That is a lot!
And this does not include the EF-RF adaptor.
If You have to carry the lens for a few days on a hike the difference would be a huge advantage.

But of course the Sigma is an ART lens and the Laowa has also to compete in IQ.
Laowa still has a 10-18mm f/5.6 lens with E-mount and it's IQ has not convinced me (I don't own or have used one, but the pictures I'have seen on the homepage and reviews).
 

Nemorino

EOS R
Aug 29, 2020
106
126
edit: hmm is the 0.4X on whole zoom range? not sure if all zoom work the same
I think only at 24mm because of the MFD:
Shortest shooting distance: 15cm
Lens and flange distance subtracted the distance between lens and subject would be around 50mm.
The 15mm Makro has a distance of just 4mm with 1:1 magnification.
The RF35 has 70mm with 0,5x mag. You don't have to calculate to see the 0,4x magnification is not possible at the wide end.

EDIT:
A UWA makro lens in action and with a mag less than 0,4:1
EOS R and Laowa 15mm.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chaitanya

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
697
455
The EF 800mm is f/5.6. Eck, that’s slow.

The RF 600mm & 800mm are f/11. Eck, that's ****ing slow.

EF 17-40mm, EF 24-70mm, and two EF 70-200mm f/4? Who'd buy them when there are f/2.8 versions?

A one stop difference isn't a lot, and f/5.6 isn't "eck, slow". Those are reasonable trade offs.
I knew someone would make a silly comment like that. Yes, we know the 600 and 800 are a stop slow, or even two stops in the case of the 600. But then, those are VERY inexpensive, VERY light, and can be compacted for carrying.

it’s also silly to compare the f4 to the f2.8 that way. F4 is still fast enough for most situations, and they are lighter and cheaper. I said for this that if it’s less expensive, people will buy it for that, mostly.

but while we’re used to slow lenses for long tele lenses, unless you’re buying a wide angle for sheet film, 5.6 is really slow for a wide, or wide zoom.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,213
363
I knew someone would make a silly comment like that.

The silly comment that aperture can be traded off against other things, such as price, weight, and size? No! That's not true! That's impossible!

it’s also silly to compare the f4 to the f2.8 that way. F4 is still fast enough for most situations, and they are lighter and cheaper.

Sometimes f/11 is fast enough, but, no - f/5.6 is "Eck, slow", no buts, no ifs, no nothing.

but while we’re used to slow lenses for long tele lenses, unless you’re buying a wide angle for sheet film, 5.6 is really slow for a wide, or wide zoom.

Up until ~2015, the fastest lens as wide as 12mm was the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. AFAIK, prior to its release at 2003, there was nothing that wide. But nowadays, that ISO goes higher and cleaner, f/5.6 is too slow. Give me a break.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
697
455
Yes, You are right but have a look at the dimensions and compare a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with this lens:
Sigma φ102x131,5mm , Laowa φ69.4 × 74mm That is a lot!
Sigma 1150g, Laowa 497g That is a lot!
And this does not include the EF-RF adaptor.
If You have to carry the lens for a few days on a hike the difference would be a huge advantage.

But of course the Sigma is an ART lens and the Laowa has also to compete in IQ.
Laowa still has a 10-18mm f/5.6 lens with E-mount and it's IQ has not convinced me (I don't own or have used one, but the pictures I'have seen on the homepage and reviews).
Of course, I mentioned the size and weight differences earlier. The price will be a major decision point too.

i’m not saying this will be a bad lens (though it might!), or that’s it’s a bad choice for those who are making the choice for the three main reasons, size, weight and cost. I’m just saying that for a wide angle zoom, it’s really slow.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
697
455
The silly comment that aperture can be traded off against other things, such as price, weight, and size? No! That's not true! That's impossible!



Sometimes f/11 is fast enough, but, no - f/5.6 is "Eck, slow", no buts, no ifs, no nothing.



Up until ~2015, the fastest lens as wide as 12mm was the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. AFAIK, prior to its release at 2003, there was nothing that wide. But nowadays, that ISO goes higher and cleaner, f/5.6 is too slow. Give me a break.
It’s slow for a wide zoom. Sorry, but it’s still true. Lenses have gotten much better in even those five years. We expect long tele’s to be slow, and there have been a number of long f8 and even f11 models over time.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,213
363
It’s slow for a wide zoom. Sorry, but it’s still true.

f/5.6 is not slow for an ultra wide zoom. I'm not even a little bit sorry to say so.

Lenses have gotten much better in even those five years. We expect long tele’s to be slow, and there have been a number of long f8 and even f11 models over time.

Lenses have gotten so much better in even those five years, the new RF 600mm long tele is three stops slower than the old EF 600mm long tele. Its the reverse - cameras have become so much better, some photographers can now settle on slower lenses.

Ultra wide zooms have improved a lot over the last 20 years, from not having any that start at 12mm, to having one that starts at 11mm and is f/4. But nothing has improved in the last five years - the Sigma 12-24mm f/4, released at 2016, isn't any faster than the Canon 11-24mm f/4 released in 2015.

But by all means, buy the Laowa 12mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. Whatever does the job for you.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,480
3,875
Nikon have the very good Z 14-24 f2.8, the Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 is an excellent lens too. An aperture of f5.6 is two full stops slower than f2.8, that's the difference between 3200 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use almost any modern camera at 3200 by 12800 I'm generally not happy.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,213
363
Nikon have the very good Z 14-24 f2.8, the Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 is an excellent lens too.

Canon has a very good RF 28-70mm f/2 zoom. Neither is as wide as a 12-24mm zoom.

An aperture of f5.6 is two full stops slower than f2.8, that's the difference between 3200 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use almost any modern camera at 3200 by 12800 I'm generally not happy.

Its also five full stops slower than f/1.0, that's the difference between 400 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use just about any camera at 400 iso over 12800. Problem is, if I want a zoom lens wider than 14mm, there isn't any faster than f/4.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,480
3,875
Canon has a very good RF 28-70mm f/2 zoom. Neither is as wide as a 12-24mm zoom.



Its also five full stops slower than f/1.0, that's the difference between 400 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use just about any camera at 400 iso over 12800. Problem is, if I want a zoom lens wider than 14mm, there isn't any faster than f/4.
The 14-24 f2.8 and 15-35 f2.8 are both unltra-wide zooms, you said there weren’t any new fast ultra-wide zooms, that is factually incorrect. That 14mm might not be wide enough for you wasn’t a comment I was replying to, you even mentioned the Sigma 14-24 f2.8!
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,213
363
The 14-24 f2.8 and 15-35 f2.8 are both unltra-wide zooms, you said there weren’t any new fast ultra-wide zooms, that is factually incorrect. That 14mm might not be wide enough for you wasn’t a comment I was replying to, you even mentioned the Sigma 14-24 f2.8!

Oh, I didn't bother repeating the "wider than 14mm", like the one this thread is about, yet again? Sorry...
 
<-- start Taboola -->