Blog Archives

A Wow for Laowa?

In the last month or so, I’ve had the opportunity to use Laowa’s 12mm F2.8 zero distortion lens along with its own filter holder and Nisi’s custom made filter holder. The version I have is for a canon mount. Overall, it’s a great piece of equipment for a reasonable price and takes up very little real estate in an already fully stuffed camera bag. Like most gear however, it’s not without its issues. I’ve only taken it out for three shoots and used it around the house, so there may be aspects that I haven’t had the chance to test entirely but I’m more than happy to test any aspect requested (if I get the chance to shoot!)

Unfortunately I’m not really tech-savvy when it comes to lens reviews, I just want to know how it serves my specific purposes. With that in mind, this is a rough index of what I’m going to comment upon.

  1. The lens itself
  2. How wide is 12mm ? Is it too wide?
  3. Night photography
  4. Sharpness stopped down
  5. Flare and sunstars
  6. Filter holders (native and Nisi)

The lens:

I’m not going to bother with discussing things like packaging. It’s sufficient and professional . What surprised me out of the box was how compact this unit is. It weight (610g) would allow me to bring it on hikes though perhaps only those where astro photography is a priority. It feels solid in the hand and appears to be built like a tank. Its size also allows a huge bonus for a lens of this focal length ; the ability to use 100mm filter kits! As a prime lens with manual focus, it would be difficult to achieve quick ‘on the fly’ shots without risking focus issues. Having said that, because it’s a prime lens, it has a nice feature of charting hyperfocal length on the lens itself .  You can hence position focus at infinity at one end , and make sure there are no objects closer than the focal length marked at the other end of the scale for your given aperture (see diagram below). I have yet to shoot panoramas with this lens but there is a marked ‘entrance pupil’ on the lens that assists with finding a nodal point .

The lens with its bulbous front element.

The rightmost number indicates the current aperture. The middle row of numbers indicates that focus at F5.6 will be between approximately 0.45 to 0.7m. If you wanted to use this as a walkabout lens without thinking, you could adjust the leftmost marker to infinity and not shoot anything closer to the focal length indicated on the right marker

How wide is 12mm?

The answer is VERY wide. This is probably best shown with some images which I took at Lake Bonney. The first image was taken with my Canon 16-35mm F4 lens. The second image was taken with the Laowa albeit, standing a few metres further back. You can see the inclusion of the tree on the left. This makes for a lot of possibilities with sweeping foregrounds but could lead to minimising of anything that’s not very imposing in the background.

16mm shot taken at Lake Bonney

12mm showing the inclusion of the additional tree on the left but minimising of the furthermost trees as seen in the 16mm version

Swirling foregrounds for waterscapes become very interesting with the 12mm. Unfortunately, given I was standing in the water, I did not take a comparison shot with the 16-35mm

Night photography:

As an owner of the 16-35mm F4 lens , I was making do with F4 for night images so once again, the prospect of a wide angle F2.8 lens was extremely appealing. The other lens I was considering was the 16-35mm F2.8 III. My version II has taken a fair battering and I had always had issues with coma and softness in the corners which meant that I was willing to sacrifice one stop of light to use the 16-35mm F4. Finding focus in the dark has always been a little finicky but achievable. With this lens, as in the example illustrated above, I set the far focus for my aperture at infinity meaning that I could have everything in focus from approximately 1.5m and beyond. During this shoot, I did not check to see whether the infinity focus itself is true infinity. This technique worked quite well for me. The main issues I wanted to explore were a) how sharp is this lens at F2.8 at the centre and in the corners? b) how does this compare with the canon 16-35mm F4? c) Did the focusing method above result in ‘missed’ focus. The images below demonstrate the results. The Laowa is a little soft at the corners but still better than the 16-35mm F2.8 II. Centre sharpness was just fine . One interesting phenomenon not related to the lens itself was the ‘ole 500/focal length rule for still stars. At 12mm , I though I could therefore get away with 40 second exposures and have no trailing. For some reason, exposures of 30 seconds or more still showed significant trailing which means that rule doesn’t seem to apply for very wide focal lengths??

100% crops from the same image taken at F2.8 30 seconds. You can see some softness in the bottom image but not a great deal of coma.

Corners of the Laowa vs Canon 16-35mm F4. The Laowa was a 30 second exposure, the Canon 25 seconds.

Final edited image of the scene demonstrated in the first image. A second foreground exposure was taken at lower iso for cleaner noise in the dark water.

Sharpness at F11 and beyond 

Most of the time in the field, I’m shooting between F11 to F16 since I tend to shoot with foreground elements present. The images below show the centre vs corner sharpness at 100% viewing in LR of the RAW file (with shadows lifted so you can see the detail). They were taken within a minute of each other with the same lighting conditions.  I think there is very little between the Laowa and the Canon lens at the centre while there is some softness of the Laowa in the corner comparison. Note there wasn’t a lot of chromatic aberration even with this kind of dramatic lighting going on.

Not much difference in centre sharpness between the two lenses

Both are a little fuzzy in the extreme corners but canon seems a reasonably clear winner here?

Sunstars and Flare:

Stopped down to F22, I’ve had a couple of opportunities to shoot sunstars. The 7 aperture blades do seem to provide a good star but perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing as the Canon 16-35mm F4 ( and F2.8II). Shooting directly into light does give a circular flare which I’ll have to experiment with when there’s more direct sun.

Different types of flare evident between the Laowa and Canon lenses.

Laowa’s sunstar is quite appealing

Filter Holders:

 I received my lens with Laowa’s own filter holder. I had heard some horrendous stories about it so I was prepared for the worst. In actual fact, the current version I received was nowhere near as terrible as was made out to be. It clips directly on to the front of the lens and has slots for two 100mm filter and a 95mm polariser. I don’t own a 95mm CPL so this was an aspect of their filter holder that I could not test. It did cause vignetting but once again, not that troublesome as you can see from the images below. It’s main limitation (other than the 95mm CPL ) is the fact that ND filters with foam gaskets to prevent light leak just do not fit into the slots in the correct orientation. In an attempt to slot them in with the foam facing outward, you can see the somewhat amusing result below.

Nisi filters however do provide a custom adapter ring which also easily slots on to the front ring of the lens. It allows their standard CPL to be used as well as slots for 2 ND filters. I wanted to see how the three slot filter would perform and unfortunately , with three filter slots in place, even the Nisi holder does result equivalent vignetting as Laowa’s holder. Since I have two filter holders, I will have to remove one slot from one but I can see that for many shooters, having to remove one slot might limit options stacking when using other lenses and wanting to stack three filters. I will be using the Nisi version of the holder simply because this allows me to use a CPL and ND filters.

Vignetting of the Laowa holder with 2 slots vs Nisi holder with 3 slots

Attempted (and unsuccessful)  long exposure with the Laowa and a successful one with the Nisi holder

A) Laowa filter holder B) Nisi adapter ring attached C) Nisi holder with 3 slots attached D) Nisi with standard CPL

Conclusions

Overall, I think the Laowa 12mm F2.8 is a good quality lens but not quite at the standard of the better Canon L lenses. It’s good for photographers whose style leans toward expansive foregrounds and grand scenes. It’s also a very good lens for milkyway photography. It’s a solidly built lens that so far seems durable (I’ll have to comment on this a year down the line) and there are options for using 100mm filters which is pretty unique for a lens of this focal length. The Nisi filter holder is definitely the more practical of the two filter holders that are available. I don’t think I would bring this as a sole lens for a backpacking trip since it would be too wide for many documentary or detail scenes. For those used to shooting not quite so wide , it may take some time to get used to finding different styles of compositions.  For $1400 AUD, it’s less than half the RRP of the Canon 16-35mm F2.8 III and about the same price as the 16-35mm F4.

I’ll be honest in saying that before I received this lens,  I wouldn’t have gone out of my way to buy it.  But now that I have it, I do realise that it has opened up doors. I’ll pretty much use it exclusively for my milky way shoots and will definitely bring it for most other landscape shoots excluding the multiday backpacking trips. I hope that the images and information was helpful to you and for those of you who own it, I’d be interested to hear of your experiences! It’s a ‘wow’ to Laowa from me 🙂

Beautiful skies over Encounter Bay. Shot with a Nisi filter holder and 4 stop soft GND.

Advertisements

Please excuse the noise, I’ve got GAS!

Just so you know you’ve stumbled across a photographic site and not a patient booklet about gastroenterology, GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome. In my medical career, we try to be relatively firm about our diagnosis and once it has been made, treatment options have to be considered. What is the evidence that the treatment will work? What is the cost-benefit ratio of this treatment? What are the potential harms? Lastly but most importantly, what are the goals of the treatment? I reflect upon this as a photographer who has been vacillating between various upgrades and have taken a minimal approach. First, the diagnosis:

GAS major criteria

  1. Internet search history contains >50% gear forum and review sites
  2. Everyone who is using craved item is producing images better than yours
  3. >50% of your social media history is involved with discussions about why X is better than Y
  4. >50% of your posts in such discussions ends up being arguments about semantics rather than tangible results.
  5. You start to imagine flaws in your current work that will be fixed by new gear
  6. Any item of gear has a shelf life of <18 months

Minor criteria (CAGE questions)

  1. You feel you should Cut down your gear seeking
  2. You feel Annoyed when people suggest you don’t need said gear
  3. You feel Guilt when looking at the potential cost of said item
  4. You need an Eye opener in the morning to satiate feelings of GAS

Diagnostic formulation :

  1. Explosive GAS = >5 major criteria, any minor criteria
  2. Inconvenient GAS = 3-5 major, >2 minor criteria
  3. Concealable GAS = < 2 major 1-2 minor criteria

My main invented first world dilemma at present is whether to stick with Canon or to shift to Nikon or Sony due to the better sensor technology.  This would be a major commitment with the potential loss many excellent Canon functional aspects. The camera foremost in consideration is the Sony A7R version 2. To understand why we might want to make the switch, our current bodies are the 5dmk3 and 6D. Our main lenses are the 16-35mm F2.8II, 17-40mm F4, 24-70 F2.8 II, 70-200 F2.8II. We use a gitzo and benro carbon fibre tripod and a BH55 RRS ballhead and Benro B2 ballhead. The following is a list of issues I have encountered with our images in recent times.

  1. Inconsistency of quality with wide angle images particularly with corners losing resolution and significant coma in wide angled astro images.
  2. Reduction of image quality when shooting long sessions in cold or damp environments with dirty filters and smudging.
  3. Trouble with flare when shooting into direct light and image quality loss as a result
  4. Trouble with attaining low enough angle to achieve some compositions
  5. Difficulty with blending when exposure bracketing results in different appearance of moving aspects (eg. water motion)
  6. Insufficient resolution to do significant crops for large prints.
  7. Occasional difficulty with isolating subjects using unresponsive peripheral AF points for photographing kids and pets

So , how would a potential switch to Nikon or Sony assist me with the above?

For point 1 : I realised that after upgrading our 24-70 F2.8 (after our original lens took a nasty affinity to concrete from standing height) , it is possible to have images with clean corners and I love our new 24-70mm lens for that! After much thinking, we have chosen to purchase the 16-35mm F4 version to address this issue.

By GAS reports, corner quality is greatly improved in the 16-35mm F4, but it is only an F4 lens so perhaps not ideal for night photography?

For point 2 and 3 , I’ve invested in a box of 5 dollar kim wipes thanks to the recommendation of  Michael Bolino! This will be one of the cheapest remedies if it works and I’ll be bringing a box with us for our upcoming New Zealand trip. Keeping filters clean is also something I should look at and that probably means a lintless filter pouch.

Mannum falls on a cold morning. Smudgy images from forgetting to bring cleaning gear to the field ! Kim wipes to the rescue?

For point 4: I figure I don’t do ultra low perspectives very often but I will admit to looking at several brands of centre columnless tripods. I’m hoping that in certain scenarios, I might even be able to take advantage of the 16-35mm F4 image stabilisation to attempt some low frames for seascapes within the 1/10- 1/4 sec range.

Wreck Beach at dusk. It would have been nice to get lower for this image. I didn’t have time to disassemble the centre column and invert it for this image.

For point 5: I counted a grand total of 2 images from our last 2 week trip where I would have potentially benefitted from not having to blend for dynamic range. One was a seascape into direct light, the other was a shoot into direct light with gale force winds moving clouds very rapidly. The seascape image turned out OK but wasn’t that strong compositionally, the gale affected image was a spot I couldn’t find a decent composition anyway. So was the canon sensor really the issue in both cases? Maybe there will be an occasion in the future where I’d have nailed everything but the dynamic range blending for moving objects killed the image?

Mount William at dusk. The problem here was the rush to get to the summit and inability to find a good subject. Rapidly moving clouds and changing light created blending issues but it wasn’t the main one.

For point 6: I don’t need to switch systems for a megapixel upgrade  but on the other hand, I decided that I was not going to shell out $5k purely for a megapixel update with the 5dsr. I can remember a total of one occasion where a company has rejected an image because of insufficient megapixel count and even on that occasion, Marianne and I were of the impression that the messenger did not know what they were asking (requesting a 200mp non panoramic image). I have recently prepared a group of 5 posters 1.5m wide where the higher megapixel count would certainly have been handy but they still turned out very well.

Roy’s Peak from 2012 shot on the 5dmk3 : Now available as a 1.5m poster! Close viewing will reveal the limitations of resolution.

For Point 7: Much as I love my kids and pets, I don’t think that achieving the crucial composition matters in the long run. I don’t think the major switch to Nikon or Sony would benefit me anyway. If anything, I’d be considering a 7dmk2? I dunno, I haven’t really even invested time into sorting out this problem I don’t really have.

I love taking pictures of the kids but really, they are for fond memories and not intended as fine art masterpieces.

So in summary, I think I’ve remedied my  GAS for now by stepping back and looking at what we would benefit from. Even though we’re constantly on the path of self development and looking to improve, I don’t feel that an upgrade in our bodies is necessarily going to result in a dramatic improvement in our work. It will make some aspects of our shooting and post production easier but honestly, these days with some experience at using luminosity masks it is rare for me to spend more than 5-10 minutes doing an initial blend. It’s all the other post-work that takes the time. We’re lucky to be in a position in life where we could actually afford the upgrade but if we weren’t,  the upgrade price of bodies and lenses would equate to a family holiday to New Zealand for a couple of weeks. I’d rather travel with a little unresolved GAS than sit at home with my temporarily satiated GAS. The problem is that GAS not only relates to photography but outdoor gear, home computers, and basically anything that costs that you potentially don’t really NEED. Or maybe I’m just arguing all of this out because in reality I’m a miser with GAS – ugh, hand me the infant’s mashed prunes!!

Hammersley Gorge, Karijini National Park. With fine details extending into the corners, I'm hoping the 16-35mm F4 will give improved performance. Dynamic range wasn't too limiting here but the increased resolution for a potential large print would have been nice!

Hammersley Gorge, Karijini National Park. With fine details extending into the corners, I’m hoping the 16-35mm F4 will give improved performance. Dynamic range wasn’t too limiting here but the increased resolution for a potential large print would have been nice!