motorhead9999 wrote:
Let me ask this: Do the petals on lenses like this and the Voigtlander actually do anything? I'm certainly not a lens designer, but I can't really see them doing any actual sun blocking worth talking about.
This is also coming from someone who is highly tempted to just machine the petals off so that I can use a 55-52mm adapter ring instead of having to get another range of filter sizes.
In my experience, they're about as effective as any petal hood for an UWA, but they're impossible to accidentally leave behind.
EarthQuake wrote:
It will be interesting to see what the real world weight differences are for the Laowa 14/4 and the CV 15. I believe CV lists the m-mount weight for the 15, while the FE weight is over 300g (or so I've read, someone can correct me if I am wrong). That said, Laowa could be listing the m-mount weight too.
CV15 for Sony is listed as 294g on B&H and Camera Quest, so I think that's accurate. Slightly bigger than the Laowa, as expected given the filter size difference.
I can't imagine trading my CV15 for this Laowa, personally, but I can see there are potentially differences that might make someone prefer the latter. I wonder if there's actually a difference in light gathering (per spec'd f4 vs f4.5) given the heavy vignetting the Laowa review stated. But the CV15 vignettes a lot also.
BTW, I have the petals cut off my CV15; never had a problem with flare and it makes it more usable with filters. Somehow it feels smaller too
grahamgibson wrote:
CV15 for Sony is listed as 294g on B&H and Camera Quest, so I think that's accurate. Slightly bigger than the Laowa, as expected given the filter size difference.
Ah yeah I see it is. When I looked a while back most reviews and stores had it listed at 247g, which is the m-mount version's weight.
I can't imagine trading my CV15 for this Laowa, personally, but I can see there are potentially differences that might make someone prefer the latter. I wonder if there's actually a difference in light gathering (per spec'd f4 vs f4.5) given the heavy vignetting the Laowa review stated. But the CV15 vignettes a lot also.
BTW, I have the petals cut off my CV15; never had a problem with flare and it makes it more usable with filters. Somehow it feels smaller too
It will be interesting to see how they compare. I just bought a Voigtlander 15mm, and I will likely pick up the Laowa when it is available from US sellers and do a head to head.
GMPhotography wrote:
The CV 15 is a 58mm. I’m on my third one and my third petal removal. Have Dremel will travel. Lol
I put a 58-62 step ring and use 62mm filters.
I should say 3 good copies
How do you ensure you don't drive into the lens element? I'd be terrified to remove the hood (Also, I don't mind the hood at all, since it helps protect the element a bit.)
Lets see how the 14/f4 performs. I expect better results.
Yes, I have the Laowa 15 f/2 and find it to be a very good but not quite excellent lens. For me at this focal length that is fine. I hoping the Laowa 14 f/4 has similar performance at f/5.6 and f/8 and I will be happy. I would be more than willing to trade a lighter weight for a slower aperture at this focal length, but I totally understand why others would not like this trade.
Yes, on that review this line really turned me off the Laowa:
'In comparison, the 14-30mm significantly outperformed this lens, in both optical quality and features offered. That’s to be expectedm however, with the 14-30mm costing hundreds of dollars more.'
It is fair to point out the price difference, but if a manual focus slow prime cannot match an AF zoom - and one that is not considered best in class - I am not too interested.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Yes, on that review this line really turned me off the Laowa:
'In comparison, the 14-30mm significantly outperformed this lens, in both optical quality and features offered. That’s to be expectedm however, with the 14-30mm costing hundreds of dollars more.'
It is fair to point out the price difference, but if a manual focus slow prime cannot match an AF zoom - and one that is not considered best in class - I am not too interested.
Best,
Bri
I think you buy one of these tiny slow wide primes to have something of high but not state of the art quality you can slip in your bag and hardly notice when you aren’t shooting ultra wide all the time. If you need a range of ultra wide focal lengths, or if you are primarily shooting ultra wide or otherwise need a slight quality boost enough to justify the size and eight of the best UW zooms, then they are the go.
Oct 01, 2020 at 07:03 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
DavidBM wrote:
I think you buy one of these tiny slow wide primes to have something of high but not state of the art quality you can slip in your bag and hardly notice when you aren’t shooting ultra wide all the time. If you need a range of ultra wide focal lengths, or if you are primarily shooting ultra wide or otherwise need a slight quality boost enough to justify the size and eight of the best UW zooms, then they are the go.
That is exactly how I would use this lens. Comparing it to an UW zoom doesn't make sense for me as I don't want an ultra wide zoom because of the size. Comparing it with the Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 makes a ton of sense to me. I am waiting hoping to see such comparisons--maybe you or your colleagues at philipreeve.net (or Fred) will do such a comparison. For me that is the real decision. From the couple of early reviews I know I will like the sunstars better on the Voigtlander, but the Laowa is smaller and has a faster aperture, so I could easily be persuaded to go either way when I see the performance compared side by side.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Comparing it to an UW zoom doesn't make sense for me as I don't want an ultra wide zoom because of the size.
Hi Steve, I understand your point. But for me it makes a lot of sense. My idea is to take the Laowa 14 instead of the Sigma 14-24 in situations where weight and size really matters (like on longer hiking tours). But I know for sure, if the IQ of the Laowa stopped down to f/5.6 is not at the same level as the Sigma zoom I would always take the Sigma despite the added weight.
Therefore I will compare them side by side at f/5.6 and f/8 and if the Sigma is clearly better at these appertures I will return the Laowa.
Indeed, besides this sentence: A more severe issue was an optical alignment problem in our sample which showed up as a zone of softness in the lower-left mid-field. Hopefully, Laowa will be able to provide more consistency in current production batches to avoid such alignment issues.
I will try exactly one sample of this lens. If this is not ok, I will give up.
Oct 01, 2020 at 01:49 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Bobu wrote:
Hi Steve, I understand your point. But for me it makes a lot of sense. My idea is to take the Laowa 14 instead of the Sigma 14-24 in situations where weight and size really matters (like on longer hiking tours). But I know for sure, if the IQ of the Laowa stopped down to f/5.6 is not at the same level as the Sigma zoom I would always take the Sigma despite the added weight.
Therefore I will compare them side by side at f/5.6 and f/8 and if the Sigma is clearly better at these appertures I will return the Laowa. ...Show more →
Knowing and loving your photography I think that makes a lot of sense. You often shoot wide and very effectively so, when you do and given the quality of your shots I can see why you want a lens that will maximize your vision. The Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 is certainly a compelling lens from that perspective.
For me, however, my FF kit is for travel and portability as I take it with me a lot. My kit will always have a great 21mm (right now that is the Loxia 21, which I think does totally stand up to the excellent Sigma zoom) which I shoot a lot, but I don't shoot wider than that very often so having a 14 or 15 mm that is small and has decent quality is enough for me in this FF kit.
When I am focussed on landscape shooting, I actually use my Fuji 44 X 33 kit, that includes the wonderful GF 23 f/4, which I am pretty confident can at least hold its own with the Sigma zoom on FF and is plenty wide enough for pretty much any shot I am likely to take. That is the kit I take if I am not worried about weight and just wanted to focus on max IQ.
I didn't mean to say the comparison to ultra wide zooms shouldn't be done or wouldn't be interesting to others, just that for me it isn't a comparison that is relevant to how I would use the lens.
Fully understood. No everybody has the same need or focus. The Loxia 21 is still my favorite lens and definitely on the same level as the Sigma. When I wanted to travel light in the past I always took the Loxia 21 and paired it with a Loxia 35 or Loxia 50 or Voigtländer 50. But with this combination I always felt a bit limited on the wide side. Therefore a combination of Laowa 14 + Loxia 21 + Voigtländer 50 could be a great lightweight (and ultra-high quality at the same time) landscape (or timelapse) kit for me.
If, and that's currently a big if, the Laowa delivers really ultra-high image quality.
