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

Honestly I have never seen so much drama from a lens company in releasing a lens as this. Go fund me type stuff? Really just ship a load to B&H and start selling them.

If they ship or sell this lens then my Samyang lens will be gone for sure, sounds my Samyang is still happy even it is not in use, lol.

I didn't do the kickstarter thing. Just not my thing. Now that it's released and I'm seeing the samples/data come through... I may pick this up.

No... In fact I am going to buy this. 24mm is plenty wide enough for me and the 16mm on the zooms are just ok wide. But for me the wider than 24mm is kind of a play toy for me so I might as well go wide. This lens has me interested.

The fisheye is nice but I don't always want the distortion and fisheye hemi works OK but after shooting some interior shots for a recent ranch visit and having to de-fish the image I wasn't 100% happy. Many pointed out to me some stuff I wasnt' aware of and now it makes sense that I need a distortion free wide angle lens.

This seems to be my answer.

Talley wrote in post #18146193
The fisheye is nice but I don't always want the distortion and fisheye hemi works OK but after shooting some interior shots for a recent ranch visit and having to de-fish the image I wasn't 100% happy. Many pointed out to me some stuff I wasnt' aware of and now it makes sense that I need a distortion free wide angle lens.

Frame a wall with both lenses (fisheye and rectilinear), where the wall's edges (ceiling, floor, side walls) are close to the edges of the frame and the sensor is parallel to the opposite wall, and compare a fisheye to a rectilinear lens design. Or compare two different designs of 'rectilinear' optics, to see differences in pincushion/barrel distortion levels.

Apart from the one example brick wall shot posted earlier, has anyone done this comparison of several UWA lenses?

Wilt wrote in post #18146235
Frame a wall with both lenses (fisheye and rectilinear), where the wall's edges (ceiling, floor, side walls) are close to the edges of the frame and the sensor is parallel to the opposite wall, and compare a fisheye to a rectilinear lens design. Or compare two different designs of 'rectilinear' optics, to see differences in pincushion/barrel distortion levels.

Apart from the one example brick wall shot posted earlier, has anyone done this comparison of several UWA lenses?

I don't need to do that. This 12mm has very little distortion and the fisheye is a lens I use for fun mostly.

I want the lens reallh to cover wide something that it does really good at and it's 2.8 so good for me.

My slowest lenses will be both 12mm lol

Talley wrote in post #18146193
I didn't do the kickstarter thing. Just not my thing. Now that it's released and I'm seeing the samples/data come through... I may pick this up.

No... In fact I am going to buy this. 24mm is plenty wide enough for me and the 16mm on the zooms are just ok wide. But for me the wider than 24mm is kind of a play toy for me so I might as well go wide. This lens has me interested.

The fisheye is nice but I don't always want the distortion and fisheye hemi works OK but after shooting some interior shots for a recent ranch visit and having to de-fish the image I wasn't 100% happy. Many pointed out to me some stuff I wasnt' aware of and now it makes sense that I need a distortion free wide angle lens.

This seems to be my answer.

Fisheye hemi converts fisheye to various different projections, none of which are rectilinear.

I use it for interiors where the broadly cylindrical projection works. One thing to note is that the lens/camera needs to be level, lest you get converging/diverging verticals after applying it.

A wide rectilinear lens brings issues of its own, with the tendency of curved objects to give the impression of 'rushing off to the corners' when you get very wide. See the Venus review earlier at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …nses/laowa_12mm​_f2-8.html

The rectilinear/cylindrica​l tradeoff was one thing I considered in a recent look at making a very wide angle B&W print
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …es/staithes_bw_​print.html

As an architectural photographer, having control over the subtleties of projection for wide views is one of the reasons I just love digital over the clunkiness of big film ( YMMV

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #18142211
What is the expected delivery date?

It sounds like the first batch has already been shipped to backers so I'm hoping to see some pictures/reviews soon.

I got used to 12mm so long time ago with my Sigma 12-24mm mk1, regardless it isn't any match to this lens distortion and even maybe quality, but i know how wide is 12mm really, and i do have 2 fisheye lenses, 8mm and 15mm, so UWA isn't something strange for me, but i use them mostly when i travel and i no longer travel due to......, but i will think to use UWA sooner or later in the future.

I like this site here because i know any gear someone or some will buy and do samples and tests, so i can decide if it is good for me or not before i do, and thanks to anyone who posting any pros and cons of gear, this really helping me, so i will wait someone or some to buy this lens and compare it to Samyang/Rokinon 14mm and give the verdicts.

B&H has it for preorder now:

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …wa_12mm_f_2_8_z​ero_d.html

keithcooper wrote in post #18146330
Fisheye hemi converts fisheye to various different projections, none of which are rectilinear.

I use it for interiors where the broadly cylindrical projection works. One thing to note is that the lens/camera needs to be level, lest you get converging/diverging verticals after applying it.

A wide rectilinear lens brings issues of its own, with the tendency of curved objects to give the impression of 'rushing off to the corners' when you get very wide. See the Venus review earlier at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …nses/laowa_12mm​_f2-8.html

The rectilinear/cylindrica​l tradeoff was one thing I considered in a recent look at making a very wide angle B&W print
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …es/staithes_bw_​print.html

As an architectural photographer, having control over the subtleties of projection for wide views is one of the reasons I just love digital over the clunkiness of big film ( YMMV

Keith I just had a read of your review and noticed your comments about metering when using the lens being off, were you just using evaluative, or did you try the other modes too? I'm thinking that with a lens as wide as that you can end up with a lot more sky in the shot, and the camera doesn't know it's a UWA either. I ask because all of my use of unchipped manual lenses has been the other way, with very long telephoto, and all of the metering modes worked as expected, including evaluative. Personally I have gone over to CWA for general shooting as it seems less inclined to underexpose if there is an occasional very bright highlight in the frame, such as specular reflections from polished metal or glass.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18154904
Keith I just had a read of your review and noticed your comments about metering when using the lens being off, were you just using evaluative, or did you try the other modes too? I'm thinking that with a lens as wide as that you can end up with a lot more sky in the shot, and the camera doesn't know it's a UWA either. I ask because all of my use of unchipped manual lenses has been the other way, with very long telephoto, and all of the metering modes worked as expected, including evaluative. Personally I have gone over to CWA for general shooting as it seems less inclined to underexpose if there is an occasional very bright highlight in the frame, such as specular reflections from polished metal or glass.

Alan

I should admit to giving the metering no real attention beyond that mention. I put it down to the camera just not knowing there was a lens attached.

I rarely use metering in my day to day work - other than to check for odd lighting situations or get an initial estimate for scene lighting levels - the mode setting on my cameras is almost always set at 'M'

Just came across this and I I can't quite read throug 86 pages.. but I saw everyone is talking about it beating the samyang. The sample photos LOOK impressive, but also the Samyang is listed at ~$300 on B&H. This lens is ~$950. Am I missing something? Aren't they in totally different categories?

It is 6 pages, not 86

I guess the "Samyang's killer" suggestion was made earlier when there was no price known for Laowa. I agree that price-wise they are now in two totally different categories, and in the "bang for the buck" department the Laowa is not an obvious winner (perhaps a looser).

Talley wrote in post #18146319
I don't need to do that. This 12mm has very little distortion and the fisheye is a lens I use for fun mostly.

I want the lens reallh to cover wide something that it does really good at and it's 2.8 so good for me.

My slowest lenses will be both 12mm lol

Hey Talley: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=KkPiIoPoTQA

Compared to a Sigma 12-24mm F 4.0, this Laowa is a piece of crap optically. Who ever would have thunk it?

pulsar123 wrote in post #18246386
It is 6 pages, not 86

I guess the "Samyang's killer" suggestion was made earlier when there was no price known for Laowa. I agree that price-wise they are now in two totally different categories, and in the "bang for the buck" department the Laowa is not an obvious winner (perhaps a looser).

Looks like this bad boy has both of em' beat optically: https://www.amazon.com …&keywords=irix+​15mm+f+2.4

Of course 15mm is not 14 or 12 mm But according to the inscrutable Christopher Frost, this irix number sounds like it kills all of them optically in the super wide department: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=PlQVLbymaIQ