Fred Miranda wrote:
I got the Laowa 15/2 a couple days ago. It weights 516 grams without the metal hood and caps. It's surprisingly small as well.
I've tested it against the Sony 12-24/4 G and CV 15/4.5 III and was very surprised by the results. I am waiting to find out if I can post the tests and if I do, I will start a new thread on it. BTW: I tested it for coma as well.
Hmm. Now Fred isn't going to be asking Laowa if he can post the tests if it sucks, is he, because then they would say "no".
And it's surprising against the Sony 12-24. But my last para suggests not surprising in a bad way.
Photos of the actual lens next to other "classics" would be very welcome (without any caps or hoods please): 12-24/4, 16-35/4, Loxia 21 and Zony 55/1.8 would be a few interesting ones since I think most of us here have at least one of them. Always easier to understand the actual size of a new lens that we never had in our hands when it is next to something we have had in our hands.
I'm going to buy it for more the filter need than anything else plus it will be a nice lens when I don't want to take the zoom but that maybe rare. I do get that circle flare but I moved around a little and it goes away too. If it's reasonably priced I'll get it. BTW folks I used the vertical grip all last week and it's a solid winner. I may just buy that too instead of renting it be nice to have if you get the 100-400 too. But if your debating the vertical grip just over the fence and get it. Really really comfortable
The shot of the ball on the string wide open doesn't seem particularly sharp. Given that's in the center of the frame I'm not super optimistic about wide open performance for astro. I guess 2.8 is a better comparison since the Samyang 14 2.8 is about the same weight but larger.
Chris
I was also waiting seemingly forever for this lens but snagged a 12-24mm which I was extremely pleased with. I even shot astro with it and found it more than sufficient so this lens would have to test extremely well to convince me to return the 12-24. The filter option with this lens would be nice as going with 150mm's wouldn't be cheap for the 12-24.
Schlotkins wrote:
The shot of the ball on the string wide open doesn't seem particularly sharp. Given that's in the center of the frame I'm not super optimistic about wide open performance for astro. I guess 2.8 is a better comparison since the Samyang 14 2.8 is about the same weight but larger.
Chris
The string is plenty of sharp in the center, the ball itself is not in the plane of optimal sharpness anymore.
Edit:
This shot is much better for evaluating center sharpness, it was taken at the minimum focus distance (subject ~2 cm from front lens).
Focus in on the wires in the center.
Bastian added sharpness to the review and I find the results a bit disappointing. His copy isn't well centered though.
@Fred: how well ist your copy centered and are your results similar?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Bastian added sharpness to the review and I find the results a bit disappointing. His copy isn't well centered though.
@Fred@: how well ist your copy centered and are your results similar?
Thanks for adding your results on sharpness. That is pretty disappointing. I think a good copy of the samsung 14 2.8 would definitely outperform at 2.8. sure there is a tube adapter but weight is similar.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Bastian added sharpness to the review and I find the results a bit disappointing. His copy isn't well centered though.
@Fred@: how well ist your copy centered and are your results similar?
I would not arrive at any conclusions on resolution/coma performance based on a decentered copy.
Lucky my copy is well-centered, which is rare nowadays even with primes, and what I'm seeing differs quite a bit although it's solely based on one copy as well. I will post it today.
The problem is it seems it's like the original sony lenses ... if 80% of review copies are decentered ...... Fred Miranda wrote:
I would not arrive at any conclusions on resolution/coma performance based on a decentered copy.
Lucky my copy is well-centered (which is rare nowadays) and what I'm seeing differs quite a bit although it's solely based on one copy as well. I will post it today.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I would not arrive at any conclusions on resolution/coma performance based on a decentered copy.
Lucky my copy is well-centered, which is rare nowadays even with primes, and what I'm seeing differs quite a bit although it's solely based on one copy as well. I will post it today.
Sure, it could affect not just the one corner, that's why I mentioned it and asked for your experience. The more data points the better
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Sure, it could affect not just the one corner, that's why I mentioned it and asked for your experience. The more data points the better
Indeed Phillip. Were you guys able to get a new copy? It's definitely frustrating when that happens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Indeed Phillip. Were you guys able to get a new copy? It's definitely frustrating when that happens.
We were promised one but I am not sure if we have a date yet. Review is on hold until then because yours obviously performs on a much higher level.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
We were promised one but I am not sure if we have a date yet. Review is on hold until then because yours obviously performs on a much higher level.
I got my copy today from Kenmore Camera. Unfortunately, one of the corners is noticeably softer than the rest. It's funny how they vacuum sealed the lens. Overall presentation is very nice. The manual focus feel is gritty at first but becomes smoother over time, but not well dampened like the high-end Zeiss or Leica. Somehow, it feels much lighter than my previous ZM 15 even though both weigh about the same. Let's see how quickly they can exchange for a new copy.
Edit: No one has mentioned this before but this lens has a wrong focus direction....
