MAubrey wrote:
I think its important to consider what 1mm means at these wide focal lengths. If we imagine the difference relative to a 35mm lens, 9mm vs. 10mm would be half way between 28mm and 35mm. Or it is what a 50mm lens is to a 58mm lens. This is a noticeable change in angle of view.
Sure, if the Laowa is a true 9 and the CV is a true 10, there will be an appreciable difference. There will also be an appreciable difference in the amount of distortion necessary to project that extra wide perspective on a two-dimensional plane, which may or may not eat away at the difference in angle of view when corrected. It'll be interesting to see them compared side-by-side.
Any follow ups on this 9mm ??
I'm dabbling in the Fuji world and have looked at the huge heavy super pricy Fuji 8-16mm and suddenly I'm made aware of this Laowa 9mm and am very curious.
I just added the Laowa 65mm macro and find it very nice so this lens is a contender especially for the size and weight.
As to the question of need, well 9 isn't 9 on a cropper and I enjoy my Sony 12-24 at 12mm so there ya go
Here's a cantonese review on the lens. At around 5:24 mins, the reviewer performed some sharpness test and the centre looks good while the corners were Ok-ish. But given the focal length, its actually pretty decent for a lens this wide
Here's a cantonese review on the lens. At around 5:24 mins, the reviewer performed some sharpness test and the centre looks good while the corners were Ok-ish. But given the focal length, its actually pretty decent for a lens this wide
Thanks for posting! Yes, the corners show some astigmatism which is expected. Keep in mind he was testing a M-mount lens on a 60MP thick Sony sensor.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Any follow ups on this 9mm ??
I'm dabbling in the Fuji world and have looked at the huge heavy super pricy Fuji 8-16mm and suddenly I'm made aware of this Laowa 9mm and am very curious.
I just added the Laowa 65mm macro and find it very nice so this lens is a contender especially for the size and weight.
As to the question of need, well 9 isn't 9 on a cropper and I enjoy my Sony 12-24 at 12mm so there ya go
I have the Laowa 9mm in Fuji mount and it's very good, I like it a lot. It's an aps-c lens and about as wide as I ever would want. Isn't this new one a full frame M mount job? Not much point if you're only using it on Fuji, surely its bigger?
Simple (maybe not so simple?) question in regard to the rectlinear 9 mm lens: is there any reason why neither Leica nor any other manufacturer made for example a 8 mm circular fisheye lens for M-mount?
I used my M-cameras with adapter and Peleng 8 mm fisheye SLR lens in EF mount (the lens has an aperture ring which makes it easy here to use) by sort of estimating the field of view and applying zone focus. It worked really well. With a modern digital M the view could be directly seen via LiveView or external EVF, too. And I believe there is some demand for this kind of lens if available.
Jun 23, 2020 at 09:24 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Bob_S wrote:
No offense, but there is t a single shot I can see that couldn't be shot with a 10, 11 or 12mm.
If you're going to demonstrate the lens you need to leverage it's only strength, the unique perspective, which wasn't done.
Yes, that's going to be difficult, which is why the lens will only sell to those people that want to know they have it, but don't need it.
I have zero interest in this lens. I don't want anything this wide or really anything wider than 14 or 15mm and even that I wouldn't shoot very often. That said, what you write here just isn't accurate. There are several architectural shots (including the one posted two posts above your post) that simply needed a lens that wide to get the buildings in with as much coverage as was in the photo. So, those shots can't be shot with even a 10mm. Personally, as I said I have no use for a lens this wide, but that doesn't mean that the posted shots didn't need a lens that wide.
So I just saw the album. Some of the pictures are great - many very heavily processed (which tells us less). But I hate to say I have to agree, except for maybe the book cases, it doesn't show the unique qualities of being an ultra wide. Does show decent distortion control.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have zero interest in this lens. I don't want anything this wide or really anything wider than 14 or 15mm and even that I wouldn't shoot very often. That said, what you write here just isn't accurate. There are several architectural shots (including the one posted two posts above your post) that simply needed a lens that wide to get the buildings in with as much coverage as was in the photo. So, those shots can't be shot with even a 10mm. Personally, as I said I have no use for a lens this wide, but that doesn't mean that the posted shots didn't need a lens that wide....Show more →
I disagree. If you asked me what focal length it was I'd say somewhere between 10 and 14mm.
Nobody I showed here guessed 9mm, they all said 12-14mm.
Bob_S wrote:
I disagree. If you asked me what focal length it was I'd say somewhere between 10 and 14mm.
Nobody I showed here guessed 9mm, they all said 12-14mm.
Could it be because 9mm rectilinear lenses did not exist until this one? There is definitely a difference in FOV between 9mm and a 12mm lens just like a 28mm to 35mm.
I see your point though. Ultra wide lenses have a similar ultra wide "look".
Fred Miranda wrote:
Could it be because 9mm rectilinear lenses did not exist until this one? There is definitely a difference in FOV between 9mm and a 12mm lens just like a 28mm to 35mm.
I see your point though. Ultra wide lenses have a similar ultra wide "look".
Possibly, perhaps I should clarify my point which was that this groundbreaker didn't make anyone here (with collectively 500+ years of experience in pro photography) say anything like 'that's definitely wider than 12mm'.
My point is the lens needs to be demonstrated to produce something a CV10 or the Sony 12-24 can't, in order to sell it to people other than those who simply want to tell their buddies they are shooting at 9mm.
It's like most supercar drivers, they can't possibly demonstrate the skill to maximise 1000 horsepower (or a third of that), so why buy the product?
You already have a few samples with sun stars. I would suggest that you show a few more. Unlike the CV 10/5.6, your 9/5.6 shows “normal” looking sunstars. The CV version showed severely distorted ones IIRC.
There is the uniqueness asked by someone here.
kevin_laowa wrote:
We have uploaded some images taken with the 9mm to our Flickr album. Enjoy!
