This topic is in the 2018 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2018Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
p.4 #1Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
To get sharp edges you need a lot of glass. A fast 2.8 lens can be stopped down to F5.6 for best sharp corners and DOF to avoid focus shift. Also a big(er) lens can have a larger image circle such tha only the linear portion is used.
Apr 21, 2018 at 01:08 PM
p.4 #2Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Apr 22, 2018 at 10:28 AM
p.4 #3Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Thanks
So thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
So thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Apr 22, 2018 at 12:29 PM
p.4 #4Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
nandadevieast wrote:
Thanks
So thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
For ideal results regarding field curvature yes, it does.
Thanks
So thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
Fred Miranda wrote
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
For ideal results regarding field curvature yes, it does.
Apr 22, 2018 at 12:56 PM
p.4 #5Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
With a ND filter of the same index and thickness as the clear/UV filter or it might induce some issue . . .
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
With a ND filter of the same index and thickness as the clear/UV filter or it might induce some issue . . .
Apr 22, 2018 at 01:29 PM
p.4 #6Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Egor wrote:
YEP! I have the Nikon fish...used it a lot in the 70's and 80's, and it definitely had that feature (rear filter). It came with a little packet of 3 filters to use and one blank.
I have wondered why more lenses don't use that option
These kind of rear filters were mainly meant for color correction using film. With digital sensors and in-camera pre or post imaging WB adjustments there is very little need other than an ND filter or CPL, which are hard to use at the exit of the lens.
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).
YEP! I have the Nikon fish...used it a lot in the 70's and 80's, and it definitely had that feature (rear filter). It came with a little packet of 3 filters to use and one blank.
I have wondered why more lenses don't use that option
These kind of rear filters were mainly meant for color correction using film. With digital sensors and in-camera pre or post imaging WB adjustments there is very little need other than an ND filter or CPL, which are hard to use at the exit of the lens.
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).
Apr 22, 2018 at 01:40 PM
p.4 #7Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
jhinkey wrote:
I have wondered why more lenses don't use that optionThese kind of rear filters were mainly meant for color correction using film. With digital sensors and in-camera pre or post imaging WB adjustments there is very little need other than an ND filter or CPL, which are hard to use at the exit of the lens.
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a...Show more →
I used them often in the film days with B/W film. I think a CPL would be handy. In any case I was mostly just responding to the comment that this was "a first". No big deal really, but I do remember this with the old Nikon fish and some lenses nowadays would be better served with a rear element filter system than trying to buy huge filter holders for large bulbous front elements thats all...
Egor wrote
YEP! I have the Nikon fish...used it a lot in the 70's and 80's, and it definitely had that feature (rear filter). It came with a little packet of 3 filters to use and one blank.I have wondered why more lenses don't use that option
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a...Show more →
I used them often in the film days with B/W film. I think a CPL would be handy. In any case I was mostly just responding to the comment that this was "a first". No big deal really, but I do remember this with the old Nikon fish and some lenses nowadays would be better served with a rear element filter system than trying to buy huge filter holders for large bulbous front elements thats all...
Apr 22, 2018 at 03:08 PM
p.4 #8Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?
Apr 22, 2018 at 06:33 PM
p.4 #9Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
In skies, but they are still really useful for cutting reflections on foliage or bodies of water.
freaklikeme wrote:
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?
freaklikeme wrote:
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?
Apr 22, 2018 at 07:31 PM
p.4 #10Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
jhinkey wrote:
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.With a ND filter of the same index and thickness as the clear/UV filter or it might induce some issue . . .
Makes me at least hope they have a filter kit as a option to buy.
Fred Miranda wrote
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Makes me at least hope they have a filter kit as a option to buy.
Apr 22, 2018 at 08:09 PM
p.4 #11Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Jman13 wrote:
In skies, but they are still really useful for cutting reflections on foliage or bodies of water.
No arguments there, but, shooting landscapes that wide... it seems like you'd have to choose either shoes or sky.
In skies, but they are still really useful for cutting reflections on foliage or bodies of water.
freaklikeme wrote
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?No arguments there, but, shooting landscapes that wide... it seems like you'd have to choose either shoes or sky.
Apr 22, 2018 at 11:15 PM
p.4 #12Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Excuse my ignorance but how does adding a filter on the rear affect F.C. but adding one to the front of a lens not?
PS - the 10-18 looks really interesting.
PS2 - I assume I will be shipped with a clear UV filter then since it’s part of the optical design?
PS - the 10-18 looks really interesting.
PS2 - I assume I will be shipped with a clear UV filter then since it’s part of the optical design?
Apr 23, 2018 at 02:01 AM
p.4 #13Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Cloudy days have no blue sky, that’s when the CPL is often used.
-Tim
freaklikeme wrote:
Jman13 wrote
In skies, but they are still really useful for cutting reflections on foliage or bodies of water.freaklikeme wrote
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?Apr 23, 2018 at 03:36 AM
p.4 #14Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
So its going to be a hit or miss process finding the same thickness ND, have never seen thickness mentioned on filter packaging...
Fred Miranda wrote:
So thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.For ideal results regarding field curvature yes, it does.
Edited on Apr 23, 2018 at 07:37 AM · View previous versions
Fred Miranda wrote:
nandadevieast wrote
ThanksSo thickness of ND has to be matched to UV ?
Fred Miranda wrote
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Edited on Apr 23, 2018 at 07:37 AM · View previous versions
Apr 23, 2018 at 03:36 AM
p.4 #15Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
I bet pre-order/early adopters will have an opportunity to add a filter package with their 10-18mm.
Apr 23, 2018 at 05:02 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.4 #16Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Aren't they going to roll out a (complimentary) line of filters by chance?
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
Aren't they going to roll out a (complimentary) line of filters by chance?
Apr 23, 2018 at 06:28 AM
p.4 #17Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
freaklikeme wrote:
No arguments there, but, shooting landscapes that wide... it seems like you'd have to choose either shoes or sky.
Not really. I shoot wide within a rainforest and always use a polarizer to reduce the glare of the foliage. Now I've never shot at 10mm, but I can definitely see using the lens at the 12-18 range to capture the details of the forest.
Jman13 wrote
In skies, but they are still really useful for cutting reflections on foliage or bodies of water.freaklikeme wrote
Don't polarizers induce some funky effects on UWAs?Not really. I shoot wide within a rainforest and always use a polarizer to reduce the glare of the foliage. Now I've never shot at 10mm, but I can definitely see using the lens at the 12-18 range to capture the details of the forest.
Apr 23, 2018 at 07:36 AM
p.4 #18Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Snopchenko wrote:
So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.Aren't they going to roll out a (complimentary) line of filters by chance?
My guess is that they will since for optimum results, the filters should have the exact same thickness.
Fred Miranda wrote
I just confirmed with Laowa that the lens must have the UV filter at all times since it’s part of the optical design. That is really great news since if it wasn’t the case, FC would be an issue.So, according to my source, we just replace the UV filter with a ND whenever needed.
My guess is that they will since for optimum results, the filters should have the exact same thickness.
Apr 23, 2018 at 08:36 AM
p.4 #19Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
Egor wrote:
I have wondered why more lenses don't use that optionThese kind of rear filters were mainly meant for color correction using film. With digital sensors and in-camera pre or post imaging WB adjustments there is very little need other than an ND filter or CPL, which are hard to use at the exit of the lens.
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).I used them often in the film days with B/W film. I think a CPL would be handy. In any case I was mostly just responding to the comment that this was "a first". No big deal really, but I do remember this with the old Nikon fish and some lenses nowadays would be better served with a rear element filter system than trying to buy huge filter holders for large bulbous front elements thats all...
It's all a good discussion
jhinkey wrote
Egor wrote
YEP! I have the Nikon fish...used it a lot in the 70's and 80's, and it definitely had that feature (rear filter). It came with a little packet of 3 filters to use and one blank.I have wondered why more lenses don't use that option
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).
It's all a good discussion
Apr 23, 2018 at 09:52 AM
p.4 #20Official: Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom at 496 grams
jhinkey wrote:
I have wondered why more lenses don't use that optionThese kind of rear filters were mainly meant for color correction using film. With digital sensors and in-camera pre or post imaging WB adjustments there is very little need other than an ND filter or CPL, which are hard to use at the exit of the lens.
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).I used them often in the film days with B/W film. I think a CPL would be handy. In any case I was mostly just responding to the comment that this was "a first". No big deal really, but I do remember this with the old Nikon fish and some lenses nowadays would be better served with a rear element filter system than trying to buy huge filter holders for large bulbous front elements thats all...It's all a good discussion
I've been talking to Laowa about the rear 37mm filter and aperture mechanism. As soon as I get the ok from them, I could share some info here.
Egor wrote
jhinkey wrote
Egor wrote
YEP! I have the Nikon fish...used it a lot in the 70's and 80's, and it definitely had that feature (rear filter). It came with a little packet of 3 filters to use and one blank.I have wondered why more lenses don't use that option
My 16/3.5 AI Fisheye Nikkor has built-in filters and I have never needed to use any one of them (except the default clear of course).
For something like a fisheye an ND filter is the most useful filter to have as long as it doesn't cause unexpected color casts or flare/ghosting, which can be a real problem with elements that are very close to the sensor surface. A CPL is sometimes useful on an ultra wide angle lens for increasing contrast around foliage/water (but not for the sky).
I've been talking to Laowa about the rear 37mm filter and aperture mechanism. As soon as I get the ok from them, I could share some info here.
Apr 23, 2018 at 09:59 AM