Re: Venus Optics Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Lite Zero-D AF Lens
Erictator wrote: Frederik0711 wrote:
Phillip Reeve's site always got great reviews. My only criticism is, that the samples rarely are full resolution and of high quality of that.
Christopher Frost is very satisfied with this lens: ?feature=shared
Seems like he got a better copy. While Bastian found the 10mm and 12mm to be almost similiar optically, Christopher found the 12mm better.
Personally, I would go for the 10mm any day if pairing it with a 14/15/16mm, like the Viltrox 16mm you got. If I paird it with a 20/21mm, I would probably go for the 12mm. The only reason why I don't have the 10mm, is that I already have the 9mm f/5.6, also from Laowa. I do miss the faster aperture for some indoor architecture in museums and such where tripods often aren't allowed, but I'm not sure if I want to give up that whole 1mm, and the 10mm probably needs to get stopped down a bit anyway to match the 9mm's sharpness in the corners. At least that's what both Bastian and Christopher claim. I hope they release an even wider lens, say a 8mm AF f/4.
---------------------------------------------
ftllens wrote:
Laowa 10mm 2.8 AF is the best lens Laowa has made so far imo. The 12mm looks amazing and it's full circle to their first Zero D. I'd only get the 12mm though if you specifically need that fl. I like the 10mm a lot more for the extra keystone headroom. Also fantastic for video.
Seems there is some consensus on the 10mm... I'll have to read up on the 10mm more... my memory might be playing tricks, but it seems the review of the 12mm mentioned the 10 wasn't as sharp and distortion was more present on the 10m than the 12mm, and it was wavy like moustache distortion, not linear? That would kinda kill it for me. Hopefully I'm remembering wrong or thinking of another review.
Eric
Bastian stated that they both have close to zero distortion, and that barely any correction is needed. Some reviewers mistake lens distortion from perspective distortion. Of course perspective distortion is noticeably more visible when being close to a subject, which one usually is with large architectural subjects or in tight spaces, but perspective distortion is not dependent on focal length.
I don't see much reason to choose the 12mm over the 10mm, other than wanting slightly sharper corners, or if one's second widest lens is tighter than 16mm. Extra width can often come in handy, especially for architecture. You can crop a bit in when needed. I would at least give it a try. These "hyper-wide" lenses are fun to play with, and can be very useful when used properly.
I try to keep most of my images levelled when possible, that goes for any focal length. Often it's worth to point in any other angle than a right one (90 degrees) to the subject, as one can fit more of the subject in the frame (if its height is longer than its width), after which one can fix the perspective and crop. It's of course a bit unpredictable compared to using a tilt lens, but one can make a quite good guess after experience. The final image will also be of lower resolution. The a7R V has a lot of cropability, and sometimes I might upscale the images when desired, which works fine for me.
Jun 28, 2025 at 04:41 PM
Previous versions of Frederik0711's message #16841813 « Venus Optics Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Lite Zero-D AF Lens »
