Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2019 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Maximilian
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Opticallimitis tests the lenses at a quite short distance, which becomes very short in case of a 15mm focal length. So their results may be largely unrelevant for astrophotography or landscape photography.
Beside that, they wrote that they refocus the lens moving from the centre to the edges, thus eliminating the effects curvature of field from the results. Oddly enough, they state this is "standard method in the photo industry": coming from the lens production industry I can say this is no way the standard method of testing lens sharpness (which is focusing at the frame centre for maximum contrast at 20 lp/mm and letting the focus unchanged); refocusing at different frame positions is rather the method for measuring the curvature of field itself.

Jan 12, 2019 at 03:28 AM

imagesfromobjects
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

I tested the heck out of my copy and it's great. Perfectly centered, sharp wide open, great color and pop, manageable size, superb build. Yet another lens that would cost at least 3x as much if Zeiss made it to the same optical standards. Maybe I got lucky, but who knows.

It's a 15mm full frame lens that's f/2. I mean, there's not anything in existence to compare it to, props to Laowa for even trying to pull this off.

/dissenting opinion

Jan 12, 2019 at 09:55 AM

tsdevine
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Mine displaced my Zeiss ZE 15 and I'm very happy with it.

Bass Harbor Head Light by Tim Devine, on Flickr

Forgotten Falls by Tim Devine, on Flickr

Adams Falls by Tim Devine, on Flickr

Discovery by Tim Devine, on Flickr

-Tim

Jan 12, 2019 at 10:52 AM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

DavidBM wrote:
I know he goes through a few copies from time to time because he's said so in some reviews, and I asked him once about a few lenses he said he was going to reviewing he replied that he'd never managed to get well centred enough copies.

I this case I think (I don't know directly but from a reliable person in contact) that he tried a couple and this, finally, was the best he could get. Perhaps he thinks it's harder to get better?

Of course you managed, and it seems like it can be terrific. But I'm reluctant to try...Show more →

My two copies came directly from Laowa.
The first one was way worse everywhere, especially midfield and corners even though centering was not bad. My second copy was absolutely perfect and it's amazing how much difference this makes when comparing real images at infinity distance.

Perhaps his centering being just "okay" means very decentered with my own tests. Hard to know since I don't know how he tests for that. I use this test, and when I say a lens is perfectly centered, all corners and mid-field are equal.
Even when that's true, I've seen softer copies at center even though they pass this centering test. Luckily that does not happen very often and the last time I saw this was with the CV 110/2.5. Received two copies and both were perfectly centered but one was sharper than the other.

It would be hard to know how the lens truly performs with only one copy.

Jan 12, 2019 at 12:29 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Fred Miranda wrote:
My two copies came directly from Laowa.
The first one was way worse everywhere, especially midfield and corners even though centering was not bad. My second copy was absolutely perfect and it's amazing how much difference this makes when comparing real images at infinity distance.

Perhaps his centering being just "okay" means very decentered with my own tests. Hard to know since I don't know how he tests for that. I use this test, and when I say a lens is perfectly centered, all corners and mid-field are equal.
Even when that's true, I've seen softer copies at center even...Show more →

I don’t know what ‘ok’ means either, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean perfect. I think in this case it means “ better than the others I got from Laowa and as good as one can reasonably expect without going through a ton”

But yes those folk that do lens reviews one one and only one copy aren’t giving a good sense of what to expect. I’m never sure whether Klaus method (actually close to yours) of waiting fir a good copy or giving a sense of how various copies are is best. I guess waiting for a good copy at least gives the reader a standard to hope for - they know that in principle they can find one like this.

Two things about optical limits/photozone that I think others have mentioned and which I’ll mention again for anyone else reading this:

(1) they are chart based tests, so are tested pretty close. That’s a recipe for errors, but I think they are very careful so maybe no worries on that score. But it might explain their Laowa results (Bastian thought the Laowa got noticeably worse off axis at closer distances. In a perfect world we’d test at multiple distances, but repeatable results at closer distances are such a hassle.

(2) they refocus off axis. Again that’s fine, and useful as it’s often interesting to know how a lens (especially a fast one) will perform at the point of exact focus off axis, rather than when centre focussed. But it does mean field curvature info is missing. (And also that his off axis results for this lens aren’t due to FC)

Jan 12, 2019 at 02:13 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

I did a review on this lens last year and it was just flat out outstanding. So to put it bluntly I call this BS with a twist of a bad copy on his review. You get a nice copy it’s a outstanding lens. Buy new or from a member. I sold mine here with a very happy buyer

Jan 12, 2019 at 04:52 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

The many happy users of the Laowa on this forum, who are likely fussier than an average user, disagrees substantially with the review's conclusions that "there are better alternatives out there" especially in relation to corner sharpness which seems to be the main concern. Many of us have tried to find such alternatives, and have not succeeded. Also, most have not reported the need to try more than one copy to get good results.

Jan 12, 2019 at 07:04 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Prompted by this discussion, I went back to my most recent copy of the Laowa and retested it (using corner focus). Although not tested side by side, this lens seems very similar IQ wise to two other copies I previously owned. Here are 100% far field unsharpened crops from the far corners, focused on the corners:


	http://richardvanhoesel.com/temp/corner%20focus%20far%20field.jpg

To some extent I have to agree with the review MTF data re extreme corner performance wide open. Maybe not as bad as implied by the review, but certainly room for improvement. But at F4 results are pretty good, and great by 5.6. I anecdotally looked at near and far field sharpness and saw similar aperture effects for both.

I normally use this lens at F5.6 or F8 (except for astro, which I don't print large anyway) so the softer extreme corner performance wide open is not field relevant to me, nor most people I would think.

My objection to the article conclusion remains though, as I don't know what a better performing alternative would be at this wide AOV (specifically in relation to sharpness). At landscape apertures of 5.6 and smaller, the Laowa is really good all the way to the far corners.

** Edit: Looking back at Fred's Laowa tests from 18 months ago, and allowing for a bit of sharpening, those images look comparable to the ones I'm showing here.

Edited on Jan 13, 2019 at 08:26 PM · View previous versions

Jan 12, 2019 at 09:53 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Anyone expecting a 15mm to be excellent wide open above F4 in the extreme corners is smoking something I’m not familiar with. Your results are quite good. F4 actually looks darn good. Folks we are taking a super wide here a very hard lens to design.

Jan 12, 2019 at 10:14 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Agreed Guy. That's why I am asking about the better alternatives the review suggests. Has anyone found such a beast at this focal length? The Sigma 14 perhaps (if you are willing to lug it around)?

For sure, my Loxia 21 at 2.8 is way better in the far corners, but it's a totally different AOV. For reference here is also the same Laowa's center performance at F2.8, where it is already near optimal (unsharpened 100% crop) :


	http://richardvanhoesel.com/temp/F2.8 centre centre-focus.jpg

Jan 12, 2019 at 10:40 PM

imagesfromobjects
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Ok, subjective stuff aside, there's some fact-checking in order which makes the sentiment of the conclusions a little iffy.

I don't know the reviewer or the site, and have no allegiance to Laowa apart from the one lens of theirs I own (and am very happy with) but here goes. Going to paste the whole deal below.

***asterisks*** denote contentious info, [brackets] are my comments

"Competition
There are several alternative lenses available in this segment ***albeit none that does exactly match the specs of the Laowa 15mm f/2 FE Zero-D*** [not sure how that makes them "alternatives", but please go on]

There's the Zeiss Batis ***18mm f/2.8*** (2nd to the left) which is, obviously, not quite as ambitious in terms of field of view as well as speed. However, it is clearly superior (and more expensive, of course) [$600 USD or so, or close to 2x the price for a lens that is neither as wide, fast or compact. But, really the Batis is superior, just trust me] Somewhat more similar is the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART HSM DG - that's ***the huge brick*** in the center below. Performance-wise it is somewhat better. Whether you really want to mount much such a lens on a tiny Sony camera is a different question though. The Tokina Firin ***20mm f/2*** FE (MF/AF) - to the right below - isn't ***quite*** as wide but just as fast [I'm sorry, I'm not sure 20mm FOV qualifies as similar to 15mm in anyone's book?]. Further options include the Samyang FE 14mm f/2.8 as well as the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 III FE [well, at least the CV was mentioned, if only as an aside. Seems like the only similar lens on the list besides the Samyang and Sigma, neither of which appealed to me personally, just based on reviews and size, respectively]

Verdict
The Laowa 15mm f/2 FE Zero-D is a ***capable lens ... within certain limits*** . As mentioned in the introduction, Laowa tries to find a "better balance" between quality and the size of the lens than other manufacturers. That already provides a hint that there's no free lunch here and the necessary compromises hit the lens at large aperture settings. While the broader center zone is perfectly fine even at ***f/2 the outer image field is soft**f [not my experience - sharp edges wide open on my copy. Corners, I'll grant, but edges are excellent] and it doesn't really improve much at f/2.8. However, the quality is fine from f/4 onwards albeit without reaching greatness. The best quality is available around f/8. ***The amount of lateral CAs is good***. Unsurprisingly, the ***vignetting is very high at f/2*** [compared to what? Also, bear in mind there's no electrical contact, so no way for sneaky, baked-in corrections that some manufacturers like to use] and it remains visible even at smaller apertures. Laowa does promise very low distortions - hence the "Zero-D" in the lens name. While not actually "zero", the ***low amount of barrel distortion is certainly a highlight***

If you really want to you can push all ultra-wide lenses into producing heavy ***flare effects***. However, the Laowa does a quite decent job here - probably because the front element isn't bulb-like and as such not quite as vulnerable to stray light.

The ***build quality of the lens is very high*** when just looking at the mechanical aspects. It's a tightly, assembled, all metal construction with a smooth focus ring. If you like old school, you will also enjoy the manual aperture selection on the lens. However, others may not like the idea of a fully manual lens without electronic aperture coupling and without AF. [so now we are giving negative points just because someone may not like MF]

The Laowa 15mm f/2 FE Zero-D is not a cheap lens at around 800USD/1000EUR. ***To be honest - relative to the performance of the lens, this is stretching things a little*** [again, compared to what?]. For a few [cough, cough 600] bucks more you can get the Zeiss FE 16-35mm f/4 OSS and the [crappier, except maybe for coma] Samyang AF 14mm f/2.8 FE is more affordable - and both support AF [because everyone wants af]. Still, the Laowa is faster and the corner weakness will not show up in shallow depth-of-field scenarios. If you are aware of its limitations and manoeuvre around them, it's actually an ***Okay lens*** [this is the point where I kinda gave up. There are just so many "weasel words" and weird, contradictory statements throughout] - more so on an A7(S) [sweet! That's my camera!] x rather than an A7R x. That being said - there are better alternatives out there.

... Yyyyyeeeeaaahhhh.

Jan 13, 2019 at 12:44 AM

SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Not so sure about too big/heavy. Compared to what? After all some of us have really huge lenses to do a different job (400GM). The idea of a large fast lens which you stop down for optimuma IQ is a durable one.

Certainly the Sigma 14mm F1.8 @ F2.8 is near state of the art and would typically surpass similar FLs wide open at F2.8. Also there’s severe UWA vignetting to consider. The Sigma @ F2.8 has much better vignetting that most other F2.8 and slower lenses (certainly the Canon 11-24mm F4.0).

Jan 13, 2019 at 06:50 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

I guess I might reluctantly carry around the Sigma for my astro shots, where I don't take a full kit anyway, but only if it was clearly superior to the Laowa. The problem is that I haven't seen any evidence so far that's the case.

Please post samples from ANY 14 or 15mm lens demonstrating better performance than the Laowa.

p.s. the Laowa is F2 so like the Sigma, it's not wide open at 2.8

Jan 13, 2019 at 07:02 PM

hotel117
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Why? Just curious, haven't really read it much.

Jan 13, 2019 at 07:06 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

From a quick scan of both the Sigma and Laowa MTF plots (not directly comparable as they are on different cameras) on the opticallimits website, my take away is that relative to best possible center performance, the Laowa needs to be stopped down to F4 for the extreme corners to be at ~50% of center performance. For the Sigma that is achieved at F2.8. At F5.6 with both lenses, the extreme corners on the Laowa are at ~60% of the best center performance, whereas for the Sigma they are at slightly more than 70%.

So if we loosely assume best center performance is fairly similar with these lenses, there does appear to be an advantage in extreme corner sharpness with the Sigma. But you trade several substantial negatives, like the much larger size and weight and difficulty of using filters. Note also that the border performance on the Sigma is actually worse than for the extreme corner, but better on the Laowa, so it is very unlikely there is any sharpness advantage in that part of the frame.

As for the Laowa, the opticallimits website concludes that the Sigma corners are soft at wide apertures. Increasingly therefore I'm inclined to think that the conclusion in the Laowa review, suggesting that there are better alternatives, may be referring to lenses with longer focal lengths rather than alternatives at 14 or 15mm.

I realise these plots are not based on large samples of lenses, but to some extent they appear validated by additional plots at lenstip.com, which similarly suggest a small advantage in corner sharpness with the Sigma over the Laowa.

In contrast to the 'soft corners' conclusion, sample shots from the Sigma's corners (on Canon) are shown at the
digital picture website, and even wide open they look very impressive.

Similarly, when doing a search for the Sigma here at FM, I found a link to another member's blog here and the corner crop wide open at F1.8 there again looks very impressive, noticeably better than anything I have seen wide open in the far corner of my Laowas.

If only it weren't such a pain to use filters with, I might consider it, despite the size and weight, but for now I think I will live with the Laowa. Stopped down at 5.6 and beyond I suspect the difference in sharpness is pretty much invisible in real world shots.

Still (I think) I'd love to see a side by side comparison of corner sharpness if anyone has access to both lenses

Jan 14, 2019 at 01:39 AM

rji2goleez
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

In my view, a lens that is overlooked for astro is the Rokinon 14/2.4 SP. Much better than the f/2.8. Yes, it's bigger and bulkier than the Laowa (and requires adapter) but I think it does better in the corners for astro. I thought I had more samples but the images below were shot at 30 seconds so you can start to see some movement in the stars in the corners.

Jan 14, 2019 at 07:14 AM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Perhaps unfairly, but the reason I have no interest at all in the Samyang/Rokinon 2.4/14 is that my experience with four copies of the 2.8 was so dreadful. Worst of any lens I have ever tried.

Jan 14, 2019 at 07:22 AM

rji2goleez
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

rvh23 wrote:
Perhaps unfairly, but the reason I have no interest at all in the Samyang/Rokinon 2.4/14 is that my experience with four copies of the 2.8 was so dreadful. Worst of any lens I have ever tried.

I agree on the 14/2.8 but this lens seems to be more consistently produced. There are a few on FM that have this lens and I have never heard anything bad like the variability of the 14/2.8. Just sayin . . .

Jan 14, 2019 at 07:34 AM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

I swore them off to be honest. There just too inconsistent and that’s just not one of there lenses. I had issues with at least 4 different ones. I can’t work like that myself.

Jan 14, 2019 at 08:57 AM

CalebAllenPhoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Laowa FE 2.0 15 mm tested by Opticallimits

Wides seem to have some of the most copy to copy inconsistencies of any focal range. I’ve been mostly lucky.

Years ago got a good copy of the Samyang 14mm 2.8 first try. I thought I won lotto. I keep it only for Astro now.

On the other hand I’ve tried one copy of the Laowa 12mm 2.8 and it was terrible. Sharp on one side and very weak on the other. Stopping down didn’t help that much. I’m think Laowa lenses look great and I’m cheering them on, but after that experience it left me nervous to buy from them again.

Got a good copy of the Sony 12-24/4 first try (maybe a bit weak at 24mm). Didn’t have great luck with Sony 16-35/4 (now sold), mine was ok, but not great.

All this variation is just the risk with wides. Test in shop or return if possible.

Jan 14, 2019 at 08:57 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.