Laowa 12mm f2.8 zero distortion lens - a Samyang 14mm killer?

To be frank, the lens it needs to beat isn't the Samyang (or any other brand) of 14mm, it's the Sigma 12-24mm HSM DG II that it needs to beat. It's the only other lens that is a 12mm. Sure the Canon 11-24L is a little wider, but I don't think a £600 should ever be compared to a £3000 lens!

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #17973867
To be frank, the lens it needs to beat isn't the Samyang (or any other brand) of 14mm, it's the Sigma 12-24mm HSM DG II that it needs to beat. It's the only other lens that is a 12mm. Sure the Canon 11-24L is a little wider, but I don't think a £600 should ever be compared to a £3000 lens!

Sometimes the comparison is about money more than just a quality optically of two lenses, for example, Canon 14mm and Samyang 14mm, i went with Samyang and it is really nice optically even the Canon is way sharper, many liked that Samyang/Rokinon and almost manual focus that made it less value, but also the distortion is a bit ugly, but overall the lens became one remarkable, even Sigma 35mm said to be a bit better than the Canon one and i think the Canon lens is more expensive, Sigma/Samyang/Laowa,..​.etc are trying to produce lenses that can be helpful and fun regardless of quality, but put the price in hand of many people to afford, I am really ready to buy this lens Laowa 12 over Canon 11-24 even if i have that $3000, i bought Tamron 15-30 over Canon 16-35L f4IS or Canon 14-24 which is more expensive than both.

Tareq wrote in post #17973963
Sometimes the comparison is about money more than just a quality optically of two lenses, for example, Canon 14mm and Samyang 14mm, i went with Samyang and it is really nice optically even the Canon is way sharper, many liked that Samyang/Rokinon and almost manual focus that made it less value, but also the distortion is a bit ugly, but overall the lens became one remarkable, even Sigma 35mm said to be a bit better than the Canon one and i think the Canon lens is more expensive, Sigma/Samyang/Laowa,..​.etc are trying to produce lenses that can be helpful and fun regardless of quality, but put the price in hand of many people to afford, I am really ready to buy this lens Laowa 12 over Canon 11-24 even if i have that $3000, i bought Tamron 15-30 over Canon 16-35L f4IS or Canon 14-24 which is more expensive than both.

The Canon 35 mark ii is better than the Sigma Art.

idkdc wrote in post #17974065
The Canon 35 mark ii is better than the Sigma Art.

For this example i was comparing with Canon 35 mk1, Canon i think produced this mark ii after the Sigma release, so they solved something, and that time i was planning on Canon 35mm mk1, Canon solved many of their lenses in mark ii versions.

Is this out yet? Do we have pricing yet?

idkdc wrote in post #18011126
Is this out yet? Do we have pricing yet?

Waiting or as they say, finger crossing?

Tareq wrote in post #18011153
Waiting or as they say, finger crossing?

There's been a few images of the lens and one taken with the lens on some Japanese sites. But there's nothing official announced since mid Feb.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #18011331
There's been a few images of the lens and one taken with the lens on some Japanese sites. But there's nothing official announced since mid Feb.

I saw the photos, but waiting the lens to hit the markets for sale, mostly it is produced so for sure it will be out, and sure there are some people will buy it and love it, somehow it will replace Samyang 14mm for a while i think, for me on FF any lens from 10mm up to 16/17mm with 2.8 will be a revolution for us, that is why i bought 15-30 VC to replace my 16-35 2.8 v1, and although i would like to have the new Canon lens 11-24 it is still way out of my reach.

Target is this summer
https://www.flickr.com …02/sets/7215766​4720514026
https://www.facebook.c​om/venuslaowa/?fref=ts

Tareq wrote in post #17973963
Sometimes the comparison is about money more than just a quality optically of two lenses, for example, Canon 14mm and Samyang 14mm, i went with Samyang and it is really nice optically even the Canon is way sharper, many liked that Samyang/Rokinon and almost manual focus that made it less value, but also the distortion is a bit ugly, but overall the lens became one remarkable, even Sigma 35mm said to be a bit better than the Canon one and i think the Canon lens is more expensive, Sigma/Samyang/Laowa,..​.etc are trying to produce lenses that can be helpful and fun regardless of quality, but put the price in hand of many people to afford, I am really ready to buy this lens Laowa 12 over Canon 11-24 even if i have that $3000, i bought Tamron 15-30 over Canon 16-35L f4IS or Canon 14-24 which is more expensive than both.

I might have to sell my 15-30 ... all my tamron zooms just to help pay for the 200L

pulsar123 wrote in post #17899301
Also check the plot on this web page:

http://www.lenstip.com …ish-eye_Introduction.html

It is for a crop sensor, so e.g. 8mm lens on a crop can have between 120 degrees (rectilinear) to 250 degrees (extreme fisheye projection) angle of view.

Look about halfway through this page:

https://www.slrlounge.​com …venture-photography-lens/

You'll see a comparison of an interior shot of with the 14mm rokinon vs. the 12mm defished = much much wider.

Talley wrote in post #18018557
I might have to sell my 15-30 ... all my tamron zooms just to help pay for the 200L

What is that 200L for? i know many L lenses above 135 are great [Such as 200, 300, 400,...etc], but i have 300L and 135L, what will 200L give me more than 300L[I use in sports] or 135L which i don't use at all?

Congrats anyway if you do.

Tareq wrote in post #18018944
What is that 200L for? i know many L lenses above 135 are great [Such as 200, 300, 400,...etc], but i have 300L and 135L, what will 200L give me more than 300L[I use in sports] or 135L which i don't use at all?

Congrats anyway if you do.

just want to try it out see what happens for now. 200L and the 300 2.8 II are the two best IQ lenses canon has right now and after shooting my friends 400 2.8 IS v1 I realize that I was limiting myself in sports to 300mm so I'm leaving that option open for the end of the year. I really really really want to try the 200L + 1.4xIII and compare it to the sigma 120-300 I have now. The sigma has been good to me. I want ultimate IQ now. the 200L is it.

It's all about focal length and your end desire. The 200L is too short imho for sports and using a 1.4x would only be a bandaid BUT I shoot my kids and there would be alot of times the 200L would be great... especially on stage that extra stop to get me from a 12,800 ISO down to a 6400 would really help out too.

The look you get from the 300 2.8 is similar to the 200L you just get a different FOV

Talley wrote in post #18018952
just want to try it out see what happens for now. 200L and the 300 2.8 II are the two best IQ lenses canon has right now and after shooting my friends 400 2.8 IS v1 I realize that I was limiting myself in sports to 300mm so I'm leaving that option open for the end of the year. I really really really want to try the 200L + 1.4xIII and compare it to the sigma 120-300 I have now. The sigma has been good to me. I want ultimate IQ now. the 200L is it.

It's all about focal length and your end desire. The 200L is too short imho for sports and using a 1.4x would only be a bandaid BUT I shoot my kids and there would be alot of times the 200L would be great... especially on stage that extra stop to get me from a 12,800 ISO down to a 6400 would really help out too.

The look you get from the 300 2.8 is similar to the 200L you just get a different FOV

Well, if i didn't have 300L and/or 135L then i may dream about 200L, also i always want to have many L as i can, even 400 and 600, but i know i can't have anything else much more by now, and i let that 200L pass in my dreams, my only dream now is to get more medium format, and this time with 100mp if possible, i think i don't need to have so many gear from Canon anymore, and if i will do definitely will not be 200L unless i let that 135L go first and something else such as 100-400 mk1 for example.

Sony took my interest these years, and i have kids grown up so i don't need many or lenses, i do have Canon 70-200 2.8 mkII, this will be a good one instead of 200L even not in same IQ class, so that i asked you if you have Canon 70-200 mkII and 300L and 135L then why you will think about 200L if you were in my place? can't do that kids photography with 135L for example? 300L is heavy, but to me, the look from 300 is better than 200L even at f2, i saw photos from 400 f2.8, it is way better than 300 at f2.8, so it is not about only how wide is the aperture, i prefer longer FL and good enough aperture than so fast wide aperture and less FL, for example i will never sacrifice 300L or even 135L just to have 85 1.2 or even 100 f1.0, bokeh so so much isn;t always the best even it is fun, but i do have 135L and i saw how incredible amazing photos out of it and i don't use the lens already.

Whatever happened to this lens?? It has vanished from their website as well!