Thanks for posting some examples of birds in flight! How was the AF tracking on the Great Blue Heron? That's one of the last things I had been wondering about the Canon version of this lens.
chuck4242 wrote:
Thanks for posting some examples of birds in flight! How was the AF tracking on the Great Blue Heron? That's one of the last things I had been wondering about the Canon version of this lens.
Np at all!
Tracking seemed to do well, but the heron was moving laterally which in my experience, is less demanding than something coming toward you. See string below.
rscheffler wrote:
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.
Thanks also for the link!
Went ahead and lined up both R5ii's with the 70-200z and Laowa side by side. Both were set to EFCS and continuous H+ (please tell me if I am missing something settings-wise). The Laowa was definitely firing off at a slower rate. Not sure what rate it was, but they were very obviously not the same.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Went ahead and lined up both R5ii's with the 70-200z and Laowa side by side. Both were set to EFCS and continuous H+ (please tell me if I am missing something settings-wise). The Laowa was definitely firing off at a slower rate. Not sure what rate it was, but they were very obviously not the same.
Thanks for checking that! Very interesting!
The only variable that might come into play, at first thought, is if flicker reduction is set on the camera with the Laowa and not on the other one and the comparison was under artificial lighting.
If both were identically set, then it would seem the Laowa presented as an older EF lens version to the camera. For reference, most EF lenses since 2010-2012 are considered latest generation and have full frame rate compatibility with Canon's mirrorless cameras. But the EF 200/2 and 200/1.8 fall into the 'old lens' category and would perform similarly to the Laowa with respect to frame rate. The frame rate impact should be less in e-shutter but apparently even here the camera may not reach the maximum rate with 'old' EF lenses.
I think it's an interesting lens and the photo that really impressed me was the one of it beside the 70-200Z. The Laowa is shorter, even with the adapter mounted! Just trying to figure out a use case for this lens, haha. I recently got the Z and really like pretty much everything about it, particularly the easy zoom throw, lightning fast AF and TC compatibility. I'll probably use it a lot with the 1.4x as a poor man's 100-300 alternative. That the Laowa probably won't take EF TCs reduces versatility and lack of IS puts it at some disadvantage for certain event coverage applications. But it wouldn't be an issue for sports. Realistically though, it's rare that I'm hard pressed to get the results I need at f/2.8, or even f/4. Yeah, f/2 has the 'look' especially if compared to similar shots a stop or two smaller. But in isolation, less so, IMO.
I'd actually be more interested in a 135/1.4, particularly with TC compatibility (I would willingly accept a larger lens for this feature). But for that to appear in EF in addition to FE, Z and L mounts, would not be as certain as the 200 (and longer focal lengths).
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for checking that! Very interesting!
The only variable that might come into play, at first thought, is if flicker reduction is set on the camera with the Laowa and not on the other one and the comparison was under artificial lighting.
If both were identically set, then it would seem the Laowa presented as an older EF lens version to the camera. For reference, most EF lenses since 2010-2012 are considered latest generation and have full frame rate compatibility with Canon's mirrorless cameras. But the EF 200/2 and 200/1.8 fall into the 'old lens' category and would perform similarly to the Laowa with respect to frame rate. The frame rate impact should be less in e-shutter but apparently even here the camera may not reach the maximum rate with 'old' EF lenses.
I think it's an interesting lens and the photo that really impressed me was the one of it beside the 70-200Z. The Laowa is shorter, even with the adapter mounted! Just trying to figure out a use case for this lens, haha. I recently got the Z and really like pretty much everything about it, particularly the easy zoom throw, lightning fast AF and TC compatibility. I'll probably use it a lot with the 1.4x as a poor man's 100-300 alternative. That the Laowa probably won't take EF TCs reduces versatility and lack of IS puts it at some disadvantage for certain event coverage applications. But it wouldn't be an issue for sports. Realistically though, it's rare that I'm hard pressed to get the results I need at f/2.8, or even f/4. Yeah, f/2 has the 'look' especially if compared to similar shots a stop or two smaller. But in isolation, less so, IMO.
I'd actually be more interested in a 135/1.4, particularly with TC compatibility (I would willingly accept a larger lens for this feature). But for that to appear in EF in addition to FE, Z and L mounts, would not be as certain as the 200 (and longer focal lengths)....Show more →
Just double checked the flicker reduction settings, and they appear to be off unless there is another setting I need to check somewhere else in the menu. "Anti-flicker shoot" and "HF anti-flicker shooting" are both set to off.
I too, love the Z. That being said though, I liked the telescoping version I got rid of to get the Z also, as both versions have their advantages.
The lack of OIS hasn't become an issue yet, as it is reasonably steady with just the IBIS when I'm looking through the VF.
Agreed 100% regarding the look this focal length and aperture combo can produce.
Right there with you regarding the 135/1.4. I was actually ready to pull the trigger on the new Sigma. However, it was way too close to the 105/1.4 which I still have in the stable. Definitely still curious enough to want to play with one though.
John do you feel the lens AF-c is smooth and continuous, but not lightening fast or a bit gittery but fast? Trying to see how this compares with older sigma lenses that halve some character when adapted.
328somewhere wrote:
John do you feel the lens AF-c is smooth and continuous, but not lightening fast or a bit gittery but fast? Trying to see how this compares with older sigma lenses that halve some character when adapted.
Definitely smooth and continuous, at least on the R5ii. While not lightning fast, it’s actually much faster than I expected it to be, which has been a pleasant surprise. I’d say it’s no 70-200z, but definitely better than the 45/1.2. Unless you’re shooting super erratic high speed subjects, I’d say it will more than suffice. As a frame of reference, the previous string of shots of that bird I posted had no misses in the sequence. Also, I just got some shots of my kids coming down a giant slide at my direction which it also kept up with. I’d say the worst AF trait it exhibits is racking from one end of the focus distance range to the other. When doing that, it is definitely leisurely.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Definitely smooth and continuous, at least on the R5ii. While not lightning fast, it’s actually much faster than I expected it to be, which has been a pleasant surprise. I’d say it’s no 70-200z, but definitely better than the 45/1.2. Unless you’re shooting super erratic high speed subjects, I’d say it will more than suffice. As a frame of reference, the previous string of shots of that bird I posted had no misses in the sequence. Also, I just got some shots of my kids coming down a giant slide at my direction which it also kept up with. I’d say the worst AF trait it exhibits is racking from one end of the focus distance range to the other. When doing that, it is definitely leisurely. ...Show more →
That’s what I was hoping for. I tend to shoot mechanical shutter slowed down a notch so if it functions smooth and continuous it works well for me. I’ve been using this method on older gen 1 canon lenses and the results have been very positive. I shoot a lot of motocross and dirt track racing so this would be great to have in my bag.
As a side note, Fringer Pro III adapter arrived for Fuji. It works (on my X-H2 and X-T4), but not anywhere nearly as well as adapted to Canon so far, for anyone who might be interested.
The lens was delivered a day early and I had one of the local deer families come by for a lens test. Initial thoughts: surprisingly decent autofocus, weighs nicely in my hand, takes a EF x2 Mark III teleconverter well (haven't tested for sharpness yet, just verified that it works), EF x1.4 Mark III teleconverter fits, but only works manually for whatever reason and is a much tighter fit than the x2.
chuck4242 wrote:
The lens was delivered a day early and I had one of the local deer families come by for a lens test. Initial thoughts: surprisingly decent autofocus, weighs nicely in my hand, takes a EF x2 Mark III teleconverter well (haven't tested for sharpness yet, just verified that it works), EF x1.4 Mark III teleconverter fits, but only works manually for whatever reason and is a much tighter fit than the x2.
Awesome shots! Glad to hear the positive initial impressions. Interesting regarding the 2x TC. It didn’t appear to be enough room when I looked, but perhaps I’ll have to try.
A couple of portraits with the EF x2 Mark III teleconverter. Autofocus works just fine, but it doesn't recognize the aperture change, just like using adapted RF teleconverters via the Commlite adapter method. Wide open at f4 @ 400mm it's surprisingly sharp, and then even better at f5.6.
chuck4242 wrote:
A couple of portraits with the EF x2 Mark III teleconverter. Autofocus works just fine, but it doesn't recognize the aperture change, just like using adapted RF teleconverters via the Commlite adapter method. Wide open at f4 @ 400mm it's surprisingly sharp, and then even better at f5.6.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Definitely looks plenty sharp!! Thanks for the update and info.
Sure thing! The EF x1.4 doesn't work since it's too tight of a connection. I also just verified that the Commlite adapter method works great with the RF x1.4 teleconverter. So it can be a little 200, 280 and 400mm lens.
That's a better solution but I wonder if the EF 1.4x will work if you use the EF-12 extension tube? But of course you will no longer get infinity focus.
rscheffler wrote:
That's a better solution but I wonder if the EF 1.4x will work if you use the EF-12 extension tube? But of course you will no longer get infinity focus.
I wish I had one to test with, but I unfortunately do not. Lens is being shipped back today. I really liked the color rendition and shadows. It has a distinct look beyond just it being capable of f/2.
