Dpedraza wrote:
He posted on FB about having the lens already
That'll be one of the most eagerly awaited reviews for me (the previous one, that of Tamron 17-50/4 by OpticalLimits, will apparently save me a significant sum of money... )
Scott Stoness wrote:
[after posting link I searched brightinstsar and it indicated fraud website. Strange philipreeve site refers to it. Usually reliable. Any use at your own risk. ]
You claim that the review contains links to a fraudulent site.
First and foremost this is not the case.
Last year several people bought their lenses through those links and not from a single one I heard of any issues (and I am 100% sure I would if there were).
I think you should really be careful making such claims, especially when they are based on heresay.
Claiming something like that really hurts my reputation as well as that of their official shop.
The pages that do claim this is a fraudulent site look extremely sketchy themselves though.
There are also no user reports and no resasons given why the page was "flagged".
Wanted to post some material on the 10mm 2.8, but sadly I had to deal with these accusations instead.
BastianK wrote:
You claim that the review contains links to a fraudulent site.
First and foremost this is not the case.
Last year several people bought their lenses through those links and not from a single one I heard of any issues (and I am 100% sure I would if there were).
I think you should really be careful making such claims, especially when they are based on heresay.
Claiming something like that really hurts my reputation as well as that of their official shop.
The pages that do claim this is a fraudulent site look extremely sketchy themselves though.
There are also no user reports and no resasons given why the page was "flagged".
Wanted to post some material on the 10mm 2.8, but sadly I had to deal with these accusations instead....Show more →
I made no such claim. I said that there are web sources that made this claim.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Thank you. It's really odd that this lens appears to have AF in E and Z mounts but not RF or L? So the deal is not as attractive for the latter two, unfortunately.
I can't speak for the L-mount case, but for RF it is possible that this limitation is imposed by Canon. Still, it is good to see chipped lenses from third parties start to appear at last. This lens is too wide for me, but I am looking at the new Cosina Voigtlander Nokton lenses for RF.
The front element is rather small compared to the casing (similar to Batis 18mm 2.8) to allow for standard 77mm filters.
With a slim polarizer there is no additional vignetting, but you cannot stack two.
Rear element is pretty big though, probably the reason there is almost no color cast in the corners
(unlike Laowa 9mm 5.6, Samyang 10mm 3.5 XP and Laowa 12mm 2.8).
BastianK wrote:
You claim that the review contains links to a fraudulent site.
First and foremost this is not the case.
Last year several people bought their lenses through those links and not from a single one I heard of any issues (and I am 100% sure I would if there were).
I think you should really be careful making such claims, especially when they are based on heresay.
Claiming something like that really hurts my reputation as well as that of their official shop.
The pages that do claim this is a fraudulent site look extremely sketchy themselves though.
There are also no user reports and no resasons given why the page was "flagged".
Wanted to post some material on the 10mm 2.8, but sadly I had to deal with these accusations instead....Show more →
Norton AV has flagged several photo sites as dangerous for me. Some are links from FM. I think some must be false positives, but why risk it?
I'm happy with my CV10, but still keeping an eye on how this compares. Don't need AF very often when using it, nor f/2.8, but the ability to use filters is slick.
gocolts wrote:
I'm happy with my CV10, but still keeping an eye on how this compares. Don't need AF very often when using it, nor f/2.8, but the ability to use filters is slick.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that AF is available in the RF mount. It looks to be manual focus only. Still, presumably the lens will be chipped, which will bring a benefit.
Edit: nevermind, I didn't realize this thread was cross posted, and I came across it in the Canon forum. AF will be great for Sony and presumably Nikon shooters.
MAubrey wrote:
I literally just received the 9mm in the mail yesterday. Here's to me not regretting my order as I wait for Bastian's review!
There is still a significant difference in FoV:
Dultimate wrote:
Any thoughts so far you can share?
I am a bit torn on this one.
Person A may highly value AF, having Exif information, a 77mm filter thread and the lack of color cast.
Person B may say, because the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for optimal performance one could just as well use the wider and much smaller 9mm 5.6.
Funny I just bought the APSC version of the 9mm 2.8 That I have yet to shoot. I will this week but I think it's awesome that Laowa is attacking the very wide arena with both FF and APSC versions. Now mine is manual focus but I really feel that when it comes to super wides AF is just not needed. Maybe my preference on it
Person A may highly value AF, having Exif information, a 77mm filter thread and the lack of color cast.
Person B may say, because the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for optimal performance one could just as well use the wider and much smaller 9mm 5.6.
Was this a hypothetical, or do you have some insight to know if this is the case?
I do feel it is often a waste to buy a faster lens that cannot be used confidently wide open. Would be a shame here if so.
Uh, but an f/5.6 lens would not be optimal wide open, I guess, so it would have to be stopped down, too... possibly into the diffraction territory? :-)
AF is of course a game changer for Laowa. They did not look like they were going this way even a year ago, and now it seems they might eventually adopt it across the board. Look what happened to Samyang: ten years ago they were only selling MF units, and now no one even really remembers that time.
BastianK wrote:
I am a bit torn on this one.
Person A may highly value AF, having Exif information, a 77mm filter thread and the lack of color cast.
Person B may say, because the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for optimal performance one could just as well use the wider and much smaller 9mm 5.6.
Person A may highly value AF, having Exif information, a 77mm filter thread and the lack of color cast.
Person B may say, because the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for optimal performance one could just as well use the wider and much smaller 9mm 5.6.
In this scenario is the 9mm 5.6 as sharp wide open as the 10mm @5.6?
Conversely, being at it's sharpest at 5.6 doesn't mean it's useless at 2.8-5.6, or is it? It might still be beneficial to have the wider aperture for some even if the corners are not sharp or whatever.
Dultimate wrote:
Any thoughts so far you can share?
BastianK wrote:
I am a bit torn on this one.
Person A may highly value AF, having Exif information, a 77mm filter thread and the lack of color cast.
Person B may say, because the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 for optimal performance one could just as well use the wider and much smaller 9mm 5.6.
garyvot wrote:
Was this a hypothetical, or do you have some insight to know if this is the case?
I do feel it is often a waste to buy a faster lens that cannot be used confidently wide open. Would be a shame here if so.
Hi Gary: Bastian reviews these lenses and posts the results over at the Phillip Reeve blog. His comments above appear to be based on his access to a pre-release model and his previous testing of other similar lenses.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Uh, but an f/5.6 lens would not be optimal wide open, I guess, so it would have to be stopped down, too... possibly into the diffraction territory? :-)
Bastian's review of the Laowa 9/5.6 indicates it's already at (or very close to) peak performance wide open.
)
