Judging by the sample images in the Phillip Reeve review, I'd say it has very nice rendering and good sharpness wide open (even if it improves a bit stopped down). The Nikon renders backgrounds a bit smoother in the direct comparison, but if you take the sample images in isolation, they are appealing.
Lack of OIS is unfortunate, but the fact that it is much lighter and smaller than the Canon is significant compensation.
Too bad Sigma could not (or would not) offer its new 200 f/2 (and other long lenses) for EF mount. Perhaps the lens design does not allow for a sufficient flange distance.
garyvot wrote:
Judging by the sample images in the Phillip Reeve review, I'd say it has very nice rendering and good sharpness wide open (even if it improves a bit stopped down). The Nikon renders backgrounds a bit smoother in the direct comparison, but if you take the sample images in isolation, they are appealing.
Lack of OIS is unfortunate, but the fact that it is much lighter and smaller than the Canon is significant compensation.
Too bad Sigma could not (or would not) offer its new 200 f/2 (and other long lenses) for EF mount. Perhaps the lens design does not allow for a sufficient flange distance. ...Show more →
Agreed. If the Sigma was released in EF mount and was 200 cheaper right out of the gate like the EF version of the Laowa, I'd likely have already pulled the trigger. Would love to have a optically modern 200/2.0 that I can use across Canon RF, Sony E, and both Fuji formats. As it stands though, I'll settle for the Laowa assuming it isn't any worse in EF mount adapted with regard to AF performance.
The lack of OIS isn't an issue as long as I can get some stabilization out of the IBIS (even if not amazing). At 200mm, it's not a big deal for me. Move out to 300+, then it becomes much more significant for my level of handshake.
Just arrived about 30 minutes ago. My immediate reaction upon opening the box was how much smaller it is than I was anticipating, so I decided to do a size comparison. I no longer have the Canon version, but from what I recall from carrying it for a few years, this thing is way more compact and easier to wield. Haven't had a chance to shoot yet. Did a quick and dirty test of AF and it seems to be pretty solid. Much more leisurely than the 70-200z, but I expected that. That being said, it is pleasantly surprising still with regard to speed of racking and accuracy. My big question mark is performance in AF-C for action and will hopefully get a chance to test soon.
One thing I was able to check since I saw it mentioned somewhere online that the Laowa was shorter than the Sigma is comparing it directly with the 70-200 at 200mm. FOV appears to be damn near identical which is good. Will hopefully have more thoughts to share sooner than later. Still working right now though.
Also, checked for firmware updates and the download available from the Laowa site is v1.1.2. However, checking the lens on the cam shows v1.1.5 which is interesting.
Thanks for including some animal photos, since that's what I personally would be shooting with this lens. I went to your Flickr page, and these are sharper than I thought they would be – a pleasant surprise. Is there room to accept EF teleconverters?
chuck4242 wrote:
Thanks for including some animal photos, since that's what I personally would be shooting with this lens. I went to your Flickr page, and these are sharper than I thought they would be – a pleasant surprise. Is there room to accept EF teleconverters?
Shots so far have definitely been plenty sharp for my taste. I have also been pleasantly surprised by it's look in general. The way some of the pre-production reviewers talked about it, I almost wondered whether it was going to be annoyingly soft wide open. I can't speak to other copies or versions for other mounts. But the EF adapted to an RF body look sufficiently sharp to my eye.
Not sure if there would be any room for the RF TC behind the adapter. I got rid of my RF 2x TC when I dumped the RF 100-500 so I can't test. IMO, there appears to be plenty of room for it. I do still have the EF 2x TC, but that definitely wouldn't work with the amount of space behind the rear element without adding the adapter gap.
As a side note, for anyone who happens to also be a Fuji and/or Sony shooter, this thing will not focus via Fringer Pro adapter on an X-H2 or X-T4, and will also not focus via Sigma MC-11 or Metabones on an A7Cii, A7RV or A9 - serious bummer as I really wanted to use it across all of my bodies for various applications.
Another side note - the tripod foot for this thing is awesome. Not sure why every single other tele doesn’t employ this release mechanism.
I am looking forward to hearing your opinion of it after you have had a chance to shoot sports with it. I have the Canon F2 200 and looked at this as a lighter weight alternative. The Canon is not all that fast to auto focus but prefer not to go backward in terms of af acquisition and tracking. It seems almost too good to be true to have this at a sub 2000 price.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Shots so far have definitely been plenty sharp for my taste. I have also been pleasantly surprised by it's look in general. The way some of the pre-production reviewers talked about it, I almost wondered whether it was going to be annoyingly soft wide open. I can't speak to other copies or versions for other mounts. But the EF adapted to an RF body look sufficiently sharp to my eye.
Not sure if there would be any room for the RF TC behind the adapter. I got rid of my RF 2x TC when I dumped the RF 100-500 so I can't test. IMO, there appears to be plenty of room for it. I do still have the EF 2x TC, but that definitely wouldn't work with the amount of space behind the rear element without adding the adapter gap.
As a side note, for anyone who happens to also be a Fuji and/or Sony shooter, this thing will not focus via Fringer Pro adapter on an X-H2 or X-T4, and will also not focus via Sigma MC-11 or Metabones on an A7Cii, A7RV or A9 - serious bummer as I really wanted to use it across all of my bodies for various applications.
Another side note - the tripod foot for this thing is awesome. Not sure why every single other tele doesn’t employ this release mechanism. ...Show more →
It's supported by Fringer adapters for X mount and GFX. You need the latest firmware. Check the Fringer website. https://www.fringeradapter.com/canon-ef-to-fujifilm-x#4
Ah. Guess I haven't shopped Fringer in a bit. I still have the original pro adapter which doesn't seem to have an available firmware update provided. Wonder if I'm going to just have to get the new one (would be lame considering I already paid $300 for the one I have ).
Any chance you could share these at full resolution via another hosting option? It appears that only low resolution is available for viewing from your Flickr account. Even something like putting them in a Google Drive folder, or similar, and providing a link to it.
While on a camera like the R5II, I'd just use it in e-shutter, I'm curious if the lens will do the maximum 12 fps rate in EFCS?
rscheffler wrote:
Any chance you could share these at full resolution via another hosting option? It appears that only low resolution is available for viewing from your Flickr account. Even something like putting them in a Google Drive folder, or similar, and providing a link to it.
While on a camera like the R5II, I'd just use it in e-shutter, I'm curious if the lens will do the maximum 12 fps rate in EFCS?
Not with my laptop at the moment, so only have access to compressed files I have saved to my phone. Saved them to Drive anyway and hoping they’ll be a little better for now.
Also, AI answers seem to believe it should go up to 12 FPS in EFCS. I’ve never tested FPS, as I have never needed much more than continuous L or M. I can try to test on R5ii, but is there an easy way to get a count? Lol
Just ordered the Fringer Pro III. Thanks for alerting me to the updates. Apparently, support was ceased for the original pro a while back. Will see what happens with this newer one.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Also, AI answers seem to believe it should go up to 12 FPS in EFCS. I’ve never tested FPS, as I have never needed much more than continuous L or M. I can try to test on R5ii, but is there an easy way to get a count? Lol
I'm thinking more of an informal impression when compared side by side with an RF lens. If the Laowa does 12fps, it will sound similar. If it doesn't and drops to around 8 fps, it will be pretty obvious. No big rush, I'm just curious.
