Thanks, I liked that one too. Interesting catch on the f/2.2, I hadn't noticed that but you're correct, its an f/2.4 lens.
I like them a lot, just re-bought the 50 so I have 25 through 85. Focusing is even better on Nikon. The 35 corners actually get better, but the midfield suffers a bit. The 24 seems a bit worse in the corners but not as bad, the 21 and 25 are retrofocal so don't suffer as much as they might. 85 seems indifferent and it's awesome.
Remains to be seen if anyone releases Z mount with chips though, Laowa is mechanical only, no EXIF. So unless Zeiss gets EXIF, I'll adapt Sony mount.
_manny_ wrote:
I like the first one with the grass, it has a real depth to it.
How come it reports the aperture as f2.2? I believe the max aperture of that lens is 2.4?
How are you finding the Loxia in general? Any corner issues etc?
I wonder if they will release them in active Z mount. Laowa has already announced a couple of their FE mount lenses for Z mount so I live in hope!
Mathieu18 wrote:
Thanks, I liked that one too. Interesting catch on the f/2.2, I hadn't noticed that but you're correct, its an f/2.4 lens.
I like them a lot, just re-bought the 50 so I have 25 through 85. Focusing is even better on Nikon. The 35 corners actually get better, but the midfield suffers a bit. The 24 seems a bit worse in the corners but not as bad, the 21 and 25 are retrofocal so don't suffer as much as they might. 85 seems indifferent and it's awesome.
Remains to be seen if anyone releases Z mount with chips though, Laowa is mechanical only, no EXIF. So unless Zeiss gets EXIF, I'll adapt Sony mount.
I keep looking at that grass photo - I think it would print well - the lens has a lovely fall off of focus and you got it with the light coming across - I hate using the term as it's controversial but it looks 3D.
It's very common for adapters to confuse aperture - I used a Canon 50/1.2 on Sony and it reported it as a 1.3 lens until I went into the settings and changed it from 1/3 to 1/2 stop steps for aperture so there might be some setting you can change in camera to get the right number reported.
I had forgotten about the lack of Exif on Laowa. Having said that Zeiss did it before with the Z* lenses, I mean they were native lenses for Nikon and Canon but I don't know if they had any cooperation from Canikon. I really wish Nikon would be a bit more open minded on this. Sony has traditionally been terrible at working with others but even they seem to have grasped that it actually helps them. It would be really great for the Z mount to get the third parties involved, Tamron making reasonably sized and priced 2.8 zooms, Sigma making Otus like primes, Zeiss making landscape Loxia lenses etc - it would give us choice and Nikon could then provide the other lenses since I doubt they are ever going to make a budget 28-75/2.8, a giant 14/1.8 or a small 21mm/2.8 manual focus lens.
That's interesting about the corners being better. I saw some tests of the Loxia 21 and it too was sharper in the corners on a Z7 versus an A7r III however there was a slight purple cast in the outermost corners. Clearly the sensor stacks aren't wildly different between Nikon and Sony.
I have been weighing up ordering the 14-30S but seeing these photos makes me think a used Loxia wide angle might be a good option instead especially as I think the 14-30S price will be a lot lower in the future.
Are you fully committed to the Z now? I see you dancing, late night, in the 35 1.8 FE thread.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Thanks, I liked that one too. Interesting catch on the f/2.2, I hadn't noticed that but you're correct, its an f/2.4 lens.
I like them a lot, just re-bought the 50 so I have 25 through 85. Focusing is even better on Nikon. The 35 corners actually get better, but the midfield suffers a bit. The 24 seems a bit worse in the corners but not as bad, the 21 and 25 are retrofocal so don't suffer as much as they might. 85 seems indifferent and it's awesome.
Remains to be seen if anyone releases Z mount with chips though, Laowa is mechanical only, no EXIF. So unless Zeiss gets EXIF, I'll adapt Sony mount.
Yea, I’m fully committed. I think the 35 is good to finally release, and it would be a good pair with the 85 that Nikon really needs to get too. But if I said “Cool lens but Nikon is way better” they’d just think I was a troll. That said, it does seem to be more of a 28/2 IQ lens, not an 85/1.8 IQ and it should probably be a $500-$600 lens not $750. I don’t think it’ll beat the Z 35/1.8.
Now I will admit, I’m used to the Z now but if Sony did release a FE A6500 styled body it might give me pause. Paired with this smaller 35 it might be interesting. But I still love the Loxia and they really shine on the Z, and can be used for normal action shots with the chipped adapter. It’s a great and light weight setup.
Dj R wrote:
Are you fully committed to the Z now? I see you dancing, late night, in the 35 1.8 FE thread.
Yea I saw Jim’s early tests, and bears out in my experience. Someone on here, forget his screen name tested the 21, 25 & 35 as well. I’ve heard from good sources that Nikon is 2.3mm, and I know Sony is 2.5mm, which fits, It’s an important difference but close enough things don’t fall apart on either one.
_manny_ wrote:
Here's the post I saw about the Loxia 21 on a Z7 - thought it might be of interest to you or any others considering this option:
VERY unscientific and completely flawed approach to just checking color and bokeh from a few lens, standing on the same corner, at the same moment... shooting with different bodies, and probably settings lol for no apparent reason, other than strong tequila.
with that being said.
I am struggling a smidge with my new kit, but only a decision that effects my wide/normal primes.
PLEASED to say, that I am 100% fully nikon again. mostly, aside from one art lens.
z7
z6
12-24 art
28e
35s
50s
105e
I am thinking about possibly dropping either the 35s or 50s and getting another 58g, which I would only pair with the Z6
and keep the 28/105 on the Z7, typically.
I will want to keep one S lens, either 35/50
so it MAY make sense to go:
28
35
58
105
for primes,
friends?
torn on these new S lenses.
the E stuff is just sooooo yum.
can't wait to see an 85 1.4S? is that going to be an S, or is there going to be another letter for the 1.4 and 1.2 stuff?
vaptre wrote:
Charles, what do you mean about differences?
My favorite FL is 50 even though 35 is more useful supposedly. For this reason alone I have accumulated a number of 50's I have 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 50 Art, Leica R 50 Cron IV, 50/1.2 Ais and my favorite the 58G.
What I mean you may have several 50/58mm FL lenses but each lens is like a different paint brush.
charles.K wrote:
My favorite FL is 50 even though 35 is more useful supposedly. For this reason alone I have accumulated a number of 50's I have 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 50 Art, Leica R 50 Cron IV, 50/1.2 Ais and my favorite the 58G.
What I mean you may have several 50/58mm FL lenses but each lens is like a different paint brush.
How you can compare 50/1.2 and 50/1.8s and 58/1.4g? Which lens would you use in what situations?
50 1.8G for casual when you simply want light and small
58 1.4 when you want a painterly bokeh effect - and create more of a artistic keepsake with a unique look that pretty much no other lens can mimic
50 1.8S is a little sterile when compared with the 58. The bokeh can be a little busy at times. But it is super sharp, like a sigma art lens. It’s not too heavy or expensive, but it’s super solid and behaves very well on a Z.
Not to step on Charles’s toes. We all may have our own reasoning. This would be mine. R
vaptre wrote:
How you can compare 50/1.2 and 50/1.8s and 58/1.4g? Which lens would you use in what situations?
I agree with Ryan here The 50/1.2 Ais is a fun lens but 90% of my portraits is with the 58/1.4G as the look is consistent with the 28E and 105E. If I need sharp rendering I use the 50 Art.
Your thought is what I’d probably do. 28E and 58 is a big gap, and the 35 though not quite as good gaps better. I happen to still like the 35 anyway. Otherwise keep the 35 & 50 S for times you forget or don’t want to carry the FTZ.
Dj R wrote:
VERY unscientific and completely flawed approach to just checking color and bokeh from a few lens, standing on the same corner, at the same moment... shooting with different bodies, and probably settings lol for no apparent reason, other than strong tequila.
with that being said.
I am struggling a smidge with my new kit, but only a decision that effects my wide/normal primes.
PLEASED to say, that I am 100% fully nikon again. mostly, aside from one art lens.
z7
z6
12-24 art
28e
35s
50s
105e
I am thinking about possibly dropping either the 35s or 50s and getting another 58g, which I would only pair with the Z6
and keep the 28/105 on the Z7, typically.
I will want to keep one S lens, either 35/50
so it MAY make sense to go:
28
35
58
105
for primes,
friends?
torn on these new S lenses.
the E stuff is just sooooo yum.
can't wait to see an 85 1.4S? is that going to be an S, or is there going to be another letter for the 1.4 and 1.2 stuff?...Show more →
I have 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 50 Art, Leica R 50 Cron IV, 50/1.2 Ais and my favorite the 58G.
The 50/1.2 Ais is a fun lens but 90% of my portraits is with the 58/1.4G as the look is consistent with the 28E and 105E. If I need sharp rendering I use the 50 Art.