Haha, the price makes it tempting but I would have preferred a 135/1.4, which would be more useful for my event work. That said, as I have stated previously, I don’t find the bokeh difference between the 135/1.4 and f/1.8 versions all that compelling for the additional size and weight. And I kind of feel the same way about the 200/2. It’s always been a niche type of lens for my needs. It’s the Sigma 300-600 that interests me most. But of course, no Canon compatibility.
The PP review says it’s not that sharp wide open so might be nice for weddings and portraiture, but combined with their impressions about its AF performance, suggests it may not be better than an adapted EF 200/2L in e-shutter.
rscheffler wrote:
Haha, the price makes it tempting but I would have preferred a 135/1.4, which would be more useful for my event work. That said, as I have stated previously, I don’t find the bokeh difference between the 135/1.4 and f/1.8 versions all that compelling for the additional size and weight. And I kind of feel the same way about the 200/2. It’s always been a niche type of lens for my needs. It’s the Sigma 300-600 that interests me most. But of course, no Canon compatibility.
The PP review says it’s not that sharp wide open so might be nice for weddings and portraiture, but combined with their impressions about its AF performance, suggests it may not be better than an adapted EF 200/2L in e-shutter. ...Show more →
Just to add: at this price point the lack of IS is not surprising. And maybe it’s tech that Laowa hasn’t yet tackled? But IME with event coverage, I want/need OIS at 200mm because it will usually be handheld and at potentially marginal shutter speeds. While IBIS will probably help somewhat, it loses effectiveness, the longer the focal length.
So this lens is what it is and one will have to work around its drawbacks. The Sigma would be a nearly no compromise lens, in terms of sheer performance in all metrics.
Anyway, any word on TC compatibility with the EF version? I’m guessing not due to the shorter length and lack of rear drop in filter, meaning the rear element will be near the mount and not deep enough to accommodate the protruding front element of Canon’s EF TCs.
does anyone have experience with their lenses? This is the first I am paying attention to this and certainly looks worth trying out just for kicks and giggle.
thedutt wrote:
does anyone have experience with their lenses? This is the first I am paying attention to this and certainly looks worth trying out just for kicks and giggle.
They’re better known among users of other mirrorless systems. Check out the Laowa reviews at the phillipreeve site I posted earlier to gain some additional insight.
thedutt wrote:
does anyone have experience with their lenses? This is the first I am paying attention to this and certainly looks worth trying out just for kicks and giggle.
Basically, they're a newer Chinese manufacturer that has typically focused on products that the big Japanese lens makers have avoided, for whatever reason. I'd recommend looking through what they have on their website to see some of the unique lenses they've produced, like ultra-wide macros, probe lenses, 2x macros that also do infinity focus, and so on.
Generally Laowa's lenses are well-built, but most lack modern features, with many releases being fully manual. The optics, however, are almost always excellent.
I'm pretty happy with my EF-mount 100/2.8 2x macro. It's a tripod / focus rail queen, but it's also better than the EF 100/2.8L.
The main concern I would have would be autofocus, especially adapted from EF-mount. It's very likely to be more than effective for static portraiture, it's action that I would want to know more about, and where the line is.
Bastian is a member here but I don't think he checks the Canon board often, if at all. I asked in the comments of his review there if he felt lack of optical IS was a hindrance and he thought that while IBIS wasn't optimal, it was still relatively effective. My only criticism of his review images is that I would have preferred he used higher than 1/200 shutter speed of many of the sample images.
My short take based on his images is that this lens is comparable to Canon EF super-teles from the 1999-2011 era. It's not super sharp wide open, but on 24MP, often sharp enough. It's certainly usable for portraits and bokeh type shots and a lot cheaper than any other 200/2 option. From what I gather so far though, this may not be a great sports/action solution. AF performance is still TBD and also uncertain is whether this lens will cause fps reduction in EFCS/mechanical shutter modes like Canon's own pre-2010ish EF lenses. I believe this is the case with the Canon 200/2 because it's from the IS v1 generation.
Any brave souls try adapting one of these yet? Seriously considering picking one up to play with for a while in EF mount. Would just love to get some real world feedback on AF with current firmware though, as info has been sparse.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Any brave souls try adapting one of these yet? Seriously considering picking one up to play with for a while in EF mount. Would just love to get some real world feedback on AF with current firmware though, as info has been sparse.
+1 on this. I've been interested in one for a while, but it's been been quiet on the Canon version of this lens.
chuck4242 wrote:
+1 on this. I've been interested in one for a while, but it's been been quiet on the Canon version of this lens.
If we could get confirmation that it works pretty much equally well adapted, I’d definitely pick up a copy of the EF version since I could adapt it across all my systems. Would make for a very versatile tool.
If we could get confirmation that it works pretty much equally well adapted, I’d definitely pick up a copy of the EF version since I could adapt it across all my systems. Would make for a very versatile tool.
Completely agree. I had the best luck using my 70-200 f2.8 (the compact version) with hummingbirds last fall and would love to try shooting them at f2, unless the AF is complete rubbish.
chuck4242 wrote:
Completely agree. I had the best luck using my 70-200 f2.8 (the compact version) with hummingbirds last fall and would love to try shooting them at f2, unless the AF is complete rubbish.
The AF will definitely be worse than the 70-200. Just based on the reviewer findings on the other mounts, the best performing version is on Sony FE mount, and it is still seemingly not adequate for fast or erratic action. I’ll still leave a little room to hold out hope for some positive findings for the EF version though.
The AF will definitely be worse than the 70-200. Just based on the reviewer findings on the other mounts, the best performing version is on Sony FE mount, and it is still seemingly not adequate for fast or erratic action. I’ll still leave a little room to hold out hope for some positive findings for the EF version though.
Yeah, I've read that the AF isn't quick, but I'd still like to see how good it is before I completely write this one off.
