Kry27 wrote:
There is a difference in what a race car driver (member of a smaller group) calls a 'supercar' and what the non-race-car-drivers call 'supercar', maybe.
I would call a race car a race car. A supercar indeed is a billionaire's toy that nobody would risk damaging on track. I doubt Bob drives, races and regularly damages Koenigseggs, Bugattis and the like...
Actually the cars you've described aren't supercars by definition. They'd be best described, depending on the particular model, as hyper (Koenigsegg) and exotic (Bugatti).
I have a mix of super and exotic which I drive on the road and track as well as collect. The main reason for ownership was investment but I can't part with some of them now.
I bought most of them during the GFC when the US market crashed and the Au to USD conversion was very favourable and at that time the Aus market was doing very well, fully expecting to make a very mild profit as I flipped them, instead I made millions, the best investment was the F40, it went from US$500,000 in 2009 to US$2m last year.
I know my stuff, it's better to use a different analogy than cars.
I'll get it, but the question is FE or M mount...
I tend to go M, assuming it will work on FE (with adapter of course) just as well as the FE version.
Does anyone know of any disadvantage (except for needing an adapter, and the extra cost) of going M, for use on FE?
Thank you very much for these very nice information. I have no experience with Laowa. How are Laowa lenses in terms of color and contrast compared with Loxias?
BastianK wrote:
It has now.
I just got the review sample last week and completed some comparisons to the 5.6/10 in the meantime,
but I had to rush the review a bit this morning as I wanted these comparisons to be out with today's official press release, as I thought these will be most interesting to many of you.
Now the article is a bit rounder with also much better product pictures
I got told they change some element spacing, but I think this may very well be within mount tolerances,
as my M version actually performs slightly better on Sony (not a big difference though).
There will also be a 14mm 4.0 (very low distortion, 52mm filter thread) and a 11mm 4.5 (62mm filter thread).
I also think the 14mm 4.0 might be the ultra wide Loxia lens we have been waiting for, sharing the 52mm filter thread of the series.
I have a good sample of the 11mm 4.5 in E-mount, but for now I will prioritize reviewing the 9mm 5.6.
When it comes to the 14mm 4.0 I have to wait for a replacement as this one is not centered good enough....Show more →
hanay78 wrote:
Thank you very much for these very nice information. I have no experience with Laowa. How are Laowa lenses in terms of color and contrast compared with Loxias?
When I get a better copy of the 14mm I can check how it compares to the 21mm 2.8 Loxia within the margin of focal length differences.
realVivek wrote:
The results of how a bad copy performs would be more useful to a potential buyer than a cherry picked review copy, no?
The "cherry picked review copy" is a forum myth I wish would be true, as it would save me lots of trouble.
The truth is this: you get any copy that is currently available.
And I clearly won't be wasting my time testing a copy that isn't well centered.
BastianK wrote:
The "cherry picked review copy" is a forum myth I wish would be true, as it would save me lots of trouble.
The truth is this: you get any copy that is currently available.
And I clearly won't be wasting my time testing a copy that isn't well centered.
That is no myth. You must have heard of the “golden” copies by now, surely.
You can choose to deny it but anyone following this forum know it very well.
realVivek wrote:
That is no myth. You must have heard of the “golden” copies by now, surely.
You can choose to deny it but anyone following this forum know it very well.
There is of course sample variation, I never denied that.
But getting a magic review copy is just not what is happening and this is true across all manufacturers.
How do I know? Because I already got lots of bad review copies and I know Fred did too and Photozone did too and Lenstip did too.
I'm quite happy with the CV 12/5.6 III which I'm using on both Leica and Sony. It's sharp at center but not quite as sharp as the CV 15/4.5 III at the corners. Astigmatism is not as bad compared to the 10/5.6.
So far, I found it to be the best balance when going wider than 15mm. Only the 12-24/4G zoom performs better at 12mm but the Voigtlander still has better sunstars, flare resistance and more pleasant color rendition. It would be interesting to see how the new 11mm performs.
It looks like the CV 12/5.6 III M and E-mount were discontinued but currently the M-mount is on sale for $499. That's the one I bought and I'm very happy with it. I used to own the E-mount version but the M performs the same way on the Sony. (Link)
The new Laowa 9mm pushes the boundaries even further. 9mm is much wider than 11/12mm and based on Bastian's review, I'm surprised it performs so well wide open on the Sony 42MP sensor.
I own the CV10 and the 15. I'm kind of allergic to lenses without EXIF data. Really wish Laowa would pay for this as it would make me far, far more likely to buy their glass. I'd gladly pay a big premium to get the EXIF support.
lightskyland wrote:
I'm kind of allergic to lenses without EXIF data. Really with Laowa would pay for this as it would make me far, far more likely to buy their glass. I'd gladly pay a big premium to get the EXIF support.
For a fully manual lens, I can live (happily) without the EXIF data.
Auto aperture would be nice, but for a 5.6 lens that does not make much difference either.
Bob_S wrote:
Would've been good if that last shot was portrait orientation and moved left to take that leading line of the overhead display into the bar.
It would also give us a lot of edge detail to assess.
