Laowa 12mm 2.8 VS Sigma 14mm 1.8

Composition to me, is much more important than tack sharpness from corner to corner.

First I also wanted to buy the Loawa, but it took so long for it's release that I bought the hidden out of production gem (Sigma 14 2.8 EX HSM).
But now I realised that 14mm is way too wide for me!

It's really difficult shooting at 14mm and strange perspective, so I can imagine how it would be with the 11-24 or 12mm for example.
Normally I would use it constantly, but I hardly used it.

I thought this would be my new go-to lens, but I sold it and I will rebuy the 16-35 f4L IS.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18291039
First I also wanted to buy the Loawa, but it took so long for it's release that I bought the hidden out of production gem (Sigma 14 2.8 EX HSM).
But now I realised that 14mm is way too wide for me!

It's really difficult shooting at 14mm and strange perspective, so I can imagine how it would be with the 11-24 or 12mm for example.
Normally I would use it constantly, but I hardly used it.

I thought this would be my new go-to lens, but I sold it and I will rebuy the 16-35 f4L IS.

I always found the 16 not wide enough and the tamron at 15 was only a smidge better. I never considered my 14 Rokinon too wide or not wide enough so I really think it's a sweet spot but I've never had 12 either

I shoot with my 12mm fisheye alot and there are sometimes I don't even think that is wide enough lol

Talley wrote in post #18291068
I shoot with my 12mm fisheye alot and there are sometimes I don't even think that is wide enough lol

Apart from when you get your shoes in the shot
I agree we need a super fish-eye, so wide that it would be tricky not to get our butt in the shot

CheshireCat wrote in post #18291199
Apart from when you get your shoes in the shot
I agree we need a super fish-eye, so wide that it would be tricky not to get our butt in the shot

Canon 8-15 was kinda wide but your right we need a full circular 270+ degree lens

I mean we need to be able to compete against these 360 cameras now right

No offense, but you folks are inspecting the photos way too much. Digital, has in many ways, ruined photography. Like smart phones have ruined human behavior. I remember when I used to have a short telephoto on a yashica fx-2000 super and everyone was wowed by the photos.

Frodge wrote in post #18291384
No offense, but you folks are inspecting the photos way too much. Digital, has in many ways, ruined photography. Like smart phones have ruined human behavior. I remember when I used to have a short telephoto on a yashica fx-2000 super and everyone was wowed by the photos.

Honestly I don't inspect much anymore. Once you get glass good enough you don't need to. Long as it's focused where I want I have the images I like. One thing I appreciate the most is the high quality and crop ability the lenses/cameras produce. This leaves alot of creativity in post. You can crop down to various aspects and achieve different results on the same image.

I see people go spend $50-60k on a new vehicle only to trade it in 4 years later and only get 18k. I happen to buy 4yr old vehicles that are 25k and use them for 4 years and trade them in at 10k... who is wasting money.... this leaves me to max out my 401k/roths every year and the rest I vacation and buy camera stuff.

Who cares what we inspecting... having better is human nature... thats why there is market for 50k+ vehicles every year.

You can inspect whatever you like. I've seen some of the greatest photos taken at a time when digital didn't exist. So much for better.

P.S. I've also seen some great photos displayed on this forum, only to be criticized by other users after they've downloaded the op file and blown it up and pixel-peeped it for noise, etc. Absurd.

Frodge wrote in post #18291396
You can inspect whatever you like. I've seen some of the greatest photos taken at a time when digital didn't exist. So much for better.

P.S. I've also seen some great photos displayed on this forum, only to be criticized by other users after they've downloaded the op file and blown it up and pixel-peeped it for noise, etc. Absurd.

I agree with that. I've taken some photos that had slightly missed focus but when printed and viewed at normal distances looked great.

Obviously I couldn't crop much but yes I agree completely with ya.

Frodge wrote in post #18291384
Digital, has in many ways, ruined photography. Like smart phones have ruined human behavior.

Digital has brought photography to everyone. This is a great accomplishment that no one loving this art should blame.

About smartphones, they are one of the most useful tools to improve quality of life.
Yes, smartphones make it easier to escape from real life and live an easier "online life". This is not fixed with smartphone-prohibition, but helping other people make their real lives worth living in full.

I am conflicted in this but feel I have a good balance now, for me anyway which is all that counts. On one hand, I went through a phase of "chasing the dragon" with gear, and caught it before I spent a bunch, and realized that photography is more fun and rewarding making pictures.

On the other, of course I study gear buying decisions and when I do get something I think I want (let's face it, need is not a good word for a lot of us) I of course as talley said have learned that you buy a premium lens and study up on it and don't worry about it after that.

I think we all have to battle a compromise for a line to draw at when tech spec obsessions go too far. Also it is a hobby, and talley shouldn't have to explain that he is doing things right in life to enjoy his hobby like most of us are. I think the real struggle is reigning it in to that "line" when you do have the expendable income for it. Like most things in life, that last bit of 10% "betterness" comes at a 50% premium. This seems to be my dilemma with new signa 14 and my current one. I really can't wait for real serious reviews even if I stay put.

Also, I 100% agree with the cat. The digital age of photography has made superior photos available to masses and the ability to darkroom yourself at home is a major part. So everyone needs to find that balance of tech and roots and I think too far in either direction is no good. Just my .02.

The problem is when the lens is too wide (like the 14mm) that everything is so small and if you want for example a room + it's contents on the picture you don't know where to look at with so much on the picture.
For minimalistic big architecture buildings this is no problem offcourse.

The person that bought my Sigma 14 2.8 EX HSM would you it for the special perspective, this lens focuses extremely close to objects.
He has 500mm tele's, ... but he planned to put a special bird from Finland in his hand and on the picture close with the 14mm perspective