Hello people. Quick clarification that I've just learned about now - apparently the manual focus versions of this lens will have more complex sunstars (from 14 aperture blades). It's only the autofocus versions that will have 10-point sunstars.
The Laowa website shows the manual RF and L mount versions available with both 5 and 14 aperture blades. It shows the Sony E and Nikon Z mount autofocus versions with 5 aperture blades and manual focus versions with 14 aperture blades.
@@christopherfrost Even number blades 14 = 14points - ODD number blades 9 =18points... Odd is double - that is why the AF one has a 10 point star it has 5 blades ODD number-
When you said "Canon RF" my heart skipped a beat (not that I'm interested in the specific lens, but the AF part could open a world)...but few seconds later you broke all my dreams saying that RF will only be manual ahahah
Still a VERY long way until Laowa starts to be any serious competitor for Sigma. Lacking a lot lenses in the lineup, especially zoom ones. I have Sigmas 14-24/2.8, 40/1.4 and 105/1.4. What substitutes of same or better quality Laowa has?
@@petrpohnan875 i don't know there is a 10mm f/2.8 from Sigma. So there is no competition at the moment. Now I know it's only advantage. Thanks for reminding me.
I just love this Laowa 10mm AF-lens on my Sony A7Rv! An absolute no brainer if you want an extreme wide angle lens. Your review was one of motivations to buy this lens. Thanks for making me spend €979 😀
@@TimsWildlife- It was a joke. Christopher described the colour of the lens outer, as blurple i.e. black, with a purple tinge. As the lens, showed a bit of colour fringing on the test charts, I jokingly referred to it as blurple fringing.
As someone with a Panasonic S5IIx, I'm happy that it will be available for L mount. AF would be nice, but if you're going to go without AF, ultra wide is where it's least useful. edit: Just looked at Laowa's website and the "manual focus" L and RF versions are the same price as the actual AF options. That unfortunately makes this lens much less appealing. My inference is that they are building in the same AF guts, but simply skipping developing compatibility with the L focus system. (As for RF, presumably that's avoiding getting caught in the line of fire of Canon shooting themselves in the foot handing Sony market share.)
NOW they finally released a lens i really want I was looking to get the Manual EF 12mm 2.8 Zero D but that needs adaptors etc. But now they released an AF Zero D 10 mm thats insane I was seriously considering the sigma 1.4 heavy AF lens but since this guy has released i think i will get onto the laowa train
I've definitely become a fan of Laowa and this announcement got me excited, but only temporarily since it's not for Fuji X mount and no AF on Canon RF.
Other than the obvious AF and faster aperture, do you have any overall comments regarding picture quality and build quality vs. the IRIX 11mm f4 lens? Based on your reviews it sounds like the Lawoa is far better?
One thought on the filter. I might consider using an adaptor ring. A 77 to 82 with an 82 mm filter. I have a 10mm 7artisan fisheye that is a fun lens but the fisheye means it is only good for some extreme uses. I have had good Astrophotography shots from it. However, on something this wide I think a polarizer causes a blue tunnel in the sky since the polarization effect doesn't cover from side to side. I wonder how this wide lens and polarizer would look on a wide view of water.
The incorrect EXIF relay at 11mm will cause problems with IBIS metadata calibration (and believe me, micro-jitters are still a major concern at 10mm). Laowa needs to update this.
I'm a bit surprised that there is so much CA with corrections on. You'd think that would be corrected for almost fully. It's usually very easy to fix in "post", after all.
A release with AF and MF versions depending on the mount. A sign of the times. Seems Laowa found a workaround for companies that ban 3rd party AF lenses.
Very nice review. As the lens has focus breathing we can assume it does not have floating elements that make corrections depending on focusing distance. It may have floating element(s) for focusing, though. Old school lens design would optimise lens optical quality at infinity focus and closer by you would see reduced quality. As we shoot test cards at closer by, it is still interesting to see how the lens does with anything at infinity focus distance. But most things at infinity have insufficient detail that humans can use as reference for judging what's good or bad. I wondered if part of the corner problem may be a curved focusing field in the subject side. As to the Sony a7t iii, it has no OLPF, and because of that, we see what the lens can do without the cons of the OLPF. (But absence of the OLPF means there is a bigger chance of what I call "Bayer noise" - especially in darker, blurry, or low-contrast image zones. If grain happens in there, blame your raw processing.)
Very nice review as usual. Thank you. One thing I don't understand is how in all these tests apsc corners can be softer or as soft as full frame corners. Shouldn't apsc use the best and sharpest part of the lens/image circle? Does this mean that if you crop from full frame in post you get sharper corners than using crop mode in camera? Or does sharpness drop off on full frame, too, where the apsc corners would be? Sorry. I asked this before but never got a convincing answer. E mount is E mount, with the same flange distance, so logic suggests the lens should perform exactly the same way. Could it be because of the microlenses on the sensor being positioned differently?
If the APS-C camera has a higher pixel density, then you are effectively zooming in more on the image and more sharpness is required to resolve the sensor. 24MP crop equals 54MP full frame, in terms of pixel pitch. If the pixel density is the same (or you're just cropping in on a full frame sensor) then soft APS-C corners means that the midfield of the lens is soft as well. There are some lenses that are sharp in the center, but even 1/2 way out to the corner they are not good. It's exceptionally rare, but it is also actually possible for a lens to be sharper near the corners than half way in.
I'd be very tempted, except I have the Sigma F/2.8 14-24mm Art lens. 4mm is a lot more, I know, but probably not worth having to carry both. I use the A7 IV.
Interesting glass. Lumix IS should work well with this lens. For sony global shutter fish-eye better to stabilize in post. Sigma 15f1.4 sounds more interesting. Not sure why but this 10mm doesn't look wide... 😮
Perhaps it's just me, but the out-of-focus areas in this lense (and probably in extremely wide angle lenses in general?) look more like motion/zooming blur to me and make me a bit dizzy. I personally think that the bright aperture should be used to let more light into the sensor in night or astro photography, rather than to produce out-of-focus background. I really like those night sky images... can I download them to use as desktop wallpaper? Heheh.
No, because this isn't low distortion as advertised. I own this lens and was surprised that this acts like any other super ultra wide lens. For the price point and advertising, it should've been better.
Hey! Could you please do a review of the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 for sony E and possibly compare it with the Sigma 16-28 f2.8? Love your reviews, youre the best!
On L mount, I’m not sure this competes with the beautiful TTArtisans 11mm f/2.8 for a third of the price. Do you want to pay triple for the ability to screw on a select number of filters?
Just wondering, i'm looking for a wide angle lens for sony FE (mainly landscapes and urban/architecture) , which would you recommend, this lens, the viltrox 16mm 1.8 or the tamron 17-28mm(seeing as they are all around the same price around here, albeit the viltrox being the cheapest). (i know these are all three completely different lenses and are all interesing for different reasons)
Too bad about the corners not being so good as that could be noticeable in such a wide angle lens. At least on APS-C the corners looked better. I can understand why there won't be a autofocus version for Canon cameras, but I wonder why L-Mount won't get an autofocus version? Unless you have to be part of the L-Mount alliance to make an autofocus lens?
The coma and smearing on the stars are making me think twice. It hasn't bothered me before with my current wide lens, but it seems a lot more noticeable with this lens?
On fullframe @2.8 in the middle it didn't look razor sharp or is that just me? I just watched another reviewer and his 2.8 test image wasn't very sharp either. Kinda disappointed because on a 60MP A7RV it would look even softer.
That coma was a bit of a shame, although one cannot be surprised given their track record of bad coma This is great for landscape photography I guess, you have to stop down for dof anyways
2.8 is just a bottom line to get "OK" astro photos , still not really ideal for that imo. Almost Zero Distortion. very hard to find one like this I think. Awesome Thanks for review by the way.
Thank goodness for this review! I almost placed an order for the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 with the blind faith that its image quality will be above average. This test has shown otherwise! I was initially impressed by the small size and weight, yet large f/2.8 of this ultra wide angle prime. Even more impressive is that it doesn't have a bulbous front element that we commonly expect of such a lens. Well, now i know why! 😅 I totally cannot accept the very poor image resolution at the corners. Just horrible is the description. The chromatic aberration looks bad too. Laowa seems to have quietly sacrificed corner-to-corner sharpness in order to design a relatively compact ultra wide angle lens. If I shoot architecture or landscape, I expect to have reasonable sharpness in the corners. This lens cannot deliver that. Who is this lens for then? I don't know! Perhaps it's those on a budget who cannot afford a much higher quality native lens. You must be willing to accept fuzzy corners even when the aperture is stopped down. I am far from an expert in lens design. But I now appreciate why ultra wide angle lenses have a protruding front element and usually weigh quite a bit. You really need all those extra glasses to correct for lens defects. It's a shame that Laowa has blatantly ignored that in their 10mm f/2.8. Thank you, Christopher, for your timely review. This lens is a BIG NO for me! 🚫⛔
I completely disagree on the distortion, this lens has the typical wide lens distortion outside the 1/3rds rule, especially when on angles looking up or down. My view of a lamp shows the lamp shade drastically increasing in size when panning the lamp to the left or right of center. When looking down the lamp shade looks elongated with a tiny base making a 2 ft lamp look 5ft tall. I like the lens, however having already owned a 16mm with absolutely no distortion, I expected more from this lens.
There are two lenses with 9mm. Lowa is not the widest. And there seems to exist sample variations. Richard Wongs's reviews reported not so good center and better corners
"Highly recommanded" is surprising given the visual shortcomings. The price for such a lens is also completely unacceptable. I use LAOWA's 7.5 mm manual lens with my MFT cameras and enjoy the sharpness, contrast, speed and bokeh without any vignetting. I am patiently waiting for the AF version. The tested 10 mm is unfortunately not yet available for MFT, but the 7.5 mm lens would be better. MFT users long for a strict wide-angle lens that is not tamed to "normal" by the crop factor 2.
A 7.5mm lens on a mft has a fov of 110° vs this 10mm lens on a ff, has a fov of 130.4° I have been using a Canon RF10mm f4 rectilinear on my R5 FF for many months now, also with a fov of 130°. Sharp as a tack.
Love canon but they have to start swallowing their pride. So many people are jumping ship to sony who want to stay with canon due to the 3rd party issues.
Why cant you borrow or rent a more current Sony camera than the A7RII for your tests. Testing on an A7RII is THREE generations older Autofocus performance. It really diminishes the relevance of your reviews IMHO. FYI, I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9, A7RIV, and currently have A1, A7RV, A9III. The much better AF of the later models makes a HUGE difference in current lens AF speed and performance. BTW, I have ordered this lens after watching reviews from others tested with more current gear. Cheers
Am i the only one that thinks that this lens produces very cheap looking pictures and terrible colors. Try the Voigtlander 10mm, it`s f5.6 manual but it will blow this lens away in picture quality.
Hello people. Quick clarification that I've just learned about now - apparently the manual focus versions of this lens will have more complex sunstars (from 14 aperture blades). It's only the autofocus versions that will have 10-point sunstars.
The Laowa website shows the manual RF and L mount versions available with both 5 and 14 aperture blades. It shows the Sony E and Nikon Z mount autofocus versions with 5 aperture blades and manual focus versions with 14 aperture blades.
Thanks. A lot of choice, isn't there! @@DCockey
Really? Thought that 14 aparture blades result in 14 point sunstars
@@chmueller Yes, you're correct
@@christopherfrost Even number blades 14 = 14points - ODD number blades 9 =18points... Odd is double - that is why the AF one has a 10 point star it has 5 blades ODD number-
10mm full frame at f/2.8 is very very impressive, bravo!
When you said "Canon RF" my heart skipped a beat (not that I'm interested in the specific lens, but the AF part could open a world)...but few seconds later you broke all my dreams saying that RF will only be manual ahahah
exact the same feeling.....lol
Laowa is coming into its own. They'll be a serious competitor for Sigma and Tamron soon.
Along with viltrox
Still a VERY long way until Laowa starts to be any serious competitor for Sigma. Lacking a lot lenses in the lineup, especially zoom ones.
I have Sigmas 14-24/2.8, 40/1.4 and 105/1.4. What substitutes of same or better quality Laowa has?
Not with this lens. This one is simpy not good enough.
@@bananabear009 Just curious, which Sigma 10mm f/2.8 is better?
@@petrpohnan875 i don't know there is a 10mm f/2.8 from Sigma. So there is no competition at the moment. Now I know it's only advantage. Thanks for reminding me.
I like this lens for one particular reason, it exposes Canon.
wdym
Very exciting to see lens manufacturers pumping out better and crazier lenses
I like the Minolta Maxxum-y spiral grip pattern for the focus ring a lot!
Last year I told my self I have all the lenses I need. Thxs Laowa for showing me I was wrong 😂
I just love this Laowa 10mm AF-lens on my Sony A7Rv! An absolute no brainer if you want an extreme wide angle lens. Your review was one of motivations to buy this lens. Thanks for making me spend €979 😀
Great review! Can't wait to see your review of Lowa's new anamorphic zoom lens.
Sony MZ-R909! What a trip down memory lane with that orange minidisc recorder. NICE!
If you like Minidiscs then a very special video is going to hit the channel later this month that you might be interested in...!
10000% will watch that, I've still got my orange NZ-N910... Thanks Chris!@@christopherfrost
Just a few weeks to go...@@thomasanderson5929
Excellent review, as alwyas I'd say, but especially so here, as I suppose it must have been more challenging than your reviews of more usual lenses.
I see it has some blurple fringing. Sorry for that, I couldn't resist it. Great review as usual.
He discussed that as CA.
@@TimsWildlife- It was a joke. Christopher described the colour of the lens outer, as blurple i.e. black, with a purple tinge. As the lens, showed a bit of colour fringing on the test charts, I jokingly referred to it as blurple fringing.
Where in the video?@@TimsWildlife
Third party lens should boycott Canon until they beg for it. I am a Canon user but not in a hurry. Canon really needs a lesson to learn!
And this is why ladies and gentlemen i sold my r8 for the a7cii
As someone with a Panasonic S5IIx, I'm happy that it will be available for L mount. AF would be nice, but if you're going to go without AF, ultra wide is where it's least useful. edit: Just looked at Laowa's website and the "manual focus" L and RF versions are the same price as the actual AF options. That unfortunately makes this lens much less appealing. My inference is that they are building in the same AF guts, but simply skipping developing compatibility with the L focus system. (As for RF, presumably that's avoiding getting caught in the line of fire of Canon shooting themselves in the foot handing Sony market share.)
I can't justify buying one, not a FL I'd be using. Still, I want it. Cool lens, bravo laowa!
NOW they finally released a lens i really want
I was looking to get the Manual EF 12mm 2.8 Zero D but that needs adaptors etc.
But now they released an AF Zero D 10 mm thats insane
I was seriously considering the sigma 1.4 heavy AF lens but since this guy has released i think i will get onto the laowa train
Corner performance wider open mean Astro photographers can scratch this off the list immediately. Thank you for the amazing review, as usual🍺
I've definitely become a fan of Laowa and this announcement got me excited, but only temporarily since it's not for Fuji X mount and no AF on Canon RF.
No af on rf is normal since canon is a jerk
Other than the obvious AF and faster aperture, do you have any overall comments regarding picture quality and build quality vs. the IRIX 11mm f4 lens? Based on your reviews it sounds like the Lawoa is far better?
The Laowa is considerably better in most ways. Then again, the Irix is an old design now, for digital SLR cameras
This looks like a fun lens! I want it
One thought on the filter. I might consider using an adaptor ring. A 77 to 82 with an 82 mm filter. I have a 10mm 7artisan fisheye that is a fun lens but the fisheye means it is only good for some extreme uses. I have had good Astrophotography shots from it. However, on something this wide I think a polarizer causes a blue tunnel in the sky since the polarization effect doesn't cover from side to side. I wonder how this wide lens and polarizer would look on a wide view of water.
The incorrect EXIF relay at 11mm will cause problems with IBIS metadata calibration (and believe me, micro-jitters are still a major concern at 10mm). Laowa needs to update this.
I'm a bit surprised that there is so much CA with corrections on. You'd think that would be corrected for almost fully. It's usually very easy to fix in "post", after all.
Chris, can you do a comparison video with the Laowa 10mm f5.6 FF lens?
These lens looks awesome
Nice. Tokina used to be the affordable wide angle choice and this looks very tempting.
A release with AF and MF versions depending on the mount. A sign of the times. Seems Laowa found a workaround for companies that ban 3rd party AF lenses.
Very nice review. As the lens has focus breathing we can assume it does not have floating elements that make corrections depending on focusing distance. It may have floating element(s) for focusing, though. Old school lens design would optimise lens optical quality at infinity focus and closer by you would see reduced quality. As we shoot test cards at closer by, it is still interesting to see how the lens does with anything at infinity focus distance. But most things at infinity have insufficient detail that humans can use as reference for judging what's good or bad.
I wondered if part of the corner problem may be a curved focusing field in the subject side.
As to the Sony a7t iii, it has no OLPF, and because of that, we see what the lens can do without the cons of the OLPF. (But absence of the OLPF means there is a bigger chance of what I call "Bayer noise" - especially in darker, blurry, or low-contrast image zones. If grain happens in there, blame your raw processing.)
Thank you-buying it immediately!
firmware update? Is there a usb port for firmware update or through the body? Thank you.
Very nice review as usual. Thank you. One thing I don't understand is how in all these tests apsc corners can be softer or as soft as full frame corners. Shouldn't apsc use the best and sharpest part of the lens/image circle? Does this mean that if you crop from full frame in post you get sharper corners than using crop mode in camera? Or does sharpness drop off on full frame, too, where the apsc corners would be? Sorry. I asked this before but never got a convincing answer. E mount is E mount, with the same flange distance, so logic suggests the lens should perform exactly the same way. Could it be because of the microlenses on the sensor being positioned differently?
If the APS-C camera has a higher pixel density, then you are effectively zooming in more on the image and more sharpness is required to resolve the sensor. 24MP crop equals 54MP full frame, in terms of pixel pitch.
If the pixel density is the same (or you're just cropping in on a full frame sensor) then soft APS-C corners means that the midfield of the lens is soft as well. There are some lenses that are sharp in the center, but even 1/2 way out to the corner they are not good. It's exceptionally rare, but it is also actually possible for a lens to be sharper near the corners than half way in.
Are the Canon and Sony versions actually different lens (Manual v Auto). For example does the Manual Canon version still have the AF/MF switch?
I'd be very tempted, except I have the Sigma F/2.8 14-24mm Art lens. 4mm is a lot more, I know, but probably not worth having to carry both. I use the A7 IV.
Very exciting review
In your opinion, which wide lens is the best for Sony FE system? For landscape photography and astro :-) Laowa 10mm Sony 14mm or any other prime lens?
Is it possible to use the lens hood with the front filter?
Interesting glass. Lumix IS should work well with this lens. For sony global shutter fish-eye better to stabilize in post. Sigma 15f1.4 sounds more interesting. Not sure why but this 10mm doesn't look wide... 😮
Aside from sunstars, would there be an image quality difference between the AF and MF versions of this lens and their aperture blade difference?
Interesting lens. I have to test it in field (or space 🙂)
Perhaps it's just me, but the out-of-focus areas in this lense (and probably in extremely wide angle lenses in general?) look more like motion/zooming blur to me and make me a bit dizzy. I personally think that the bright aperture should be used to let more light into the sensor in night or astro photography, rather than to produce out-of-focus background. I really like those night sky images... can I download them to use as desktop wallpaper? Heheh.
I wonder what’s the actual focal length when focused far or infinity, with so much breathing.
I wonder if the corners of the lens with manual focus focusing can be sharper?
No, because this isn't low distortion as advertised. I own this lens and was surprised that this acts like any other super ultra wide lens. For the price point and advertising, it should've been better.
I wonder how this compares to the Sony 12-24mm 2.8 that 3x the price
Didn't know that you speedsolved, what is your pb?
I'm still learning how to solve that thing in the first place hehe
Hey! Could you please do a review of the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 for sony E and possibly compare it with the Sigma 16-28 f2.8? Love your reviews, youre the best!
Just buy the Tamron, it's great.
I second that
Need to test this lens for astro?
Ugh. Of course I just bought a Brighten Star 9mm 5.6. In my case I'd trade one mm for AF.
On L mount, I’m not sure this competes with the beautiful TTArtisans 11mm f/2.8 for a third of the price. Do you want to pay triple for the ability to screw on a select number of filters?
Just wondering, i'm looking for a wide angle lens for sony FE (mainly landscapes and urban/architecture) , which would you recommend, this lens, the viltrox 16mm 1.8 or the tamron 17-28mm(seeing as they are all around the same price around here, albeit the viltrox being the cheapest).
(i know these are all three completely different lenses and are all interesing for different reasons)
How does size/weight compare to the 9mm FF version?
How does image quality compare with Samyang's XP 10mm 3.5?
They`re both terrible.
I think the autofocus only has 5 aperture blades instead of the manual 14.
Two versions available:
- 14 blades MF all mounts
- 5 blades AF (Sony & Nikon), MF (R mount and L mount)
Too bad about the corners not being so good as that could be noticeable in such a wide angle lens. At least on APS-C the corners looked better. I can understand why there won't be a autofocus version for Canon cameras, but I wonder why L-Mount won't get an autofocus version? Unless you have to be part of the L-Mount alliance to make an autofocus lens?
Yeah man.
The coma and smearing on the stars are making me think twice. It hasn't bothered me before with my current wide lens, but it seems a lot more noticeable with this lens?
RF 10-20MM F/4 lens review. THX.
Mine works great
Viltrox should launch one pro lens in uwa category. Their 13mm f1.4 is great though.
This or 12-24 F.28 lens?
On fullframe @2.8 in the middle it didn't look razor sharp or is that just me? I just watched another reviewer and his 2.8 test image wasn't very sharp either. Kinda disappointed because on a 60MP A7RV it would look even softer.
🔥
That coma was a bit of a shame, although one cannot be surprised given their track record of bad coma
This is great for landscape photography I guess, you have to stop down for dof anyways
Unforatunately I could only use it for timelapses on Canon.
2.8 is just a bottom line to get "OK" astro photos , still not really ideal for that imo.
Almost Zero Distortion. very hard to find one like this I think. Awesome
Thanks for review by the way.
I'm mostly just surprised you found a Crystal Pepsi somewhere. They still make these? WTF?? 😁😁
So what is this minimum focus distance?
12cm
@@ewbaite thank you
WOAH IM EARLY I LOVE THIS
So L-mount alliance is not that good thing. Looks like 3rd party lenses cannot get AF there :(. I was hoping to get this as AF for my S5IIX :(.
Welp, looks like the 7Artisans 9mm f/5.6 is up for sale.
Not a full frame so...
@@montazownianr1 it sure is
Thanks for the review, especially for the APS-C view as I would use it on FF and APS-C 👍
No auto-focus for Canon? That's a big down side for Canon users.
We can thank Canon for that 😔
Go Frog Go!! 🐸
Thank goodness for this review! I almost placed an order for the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 with the blind faith that its image quality will be above average. This test has shown otherwise!
I was initially impressed by the small size and weight, yet large f/2.8 of this ultra wide angle prime. Even more impressive is that it doesn't have a bulbous front element that we commonly expect of such a lens.
Well, now i know why! 😅
I totally cannot accept the very poor image resolution at the corners. Just horrible is the description. The chromatic aberration looks bad too.
Laowa seems to have quietly sacrificed corner-to-corner sharpness in order to design a relatively compact ultra wide angle lens.
If I shoot architecture or landscape, I expect to have reasonable sharpness in the corners. This lens cannot deliver that.
Who is this lens for then? I don't know! Perhaps it's those on a budget who cannot afford a much higher quality native lens. You must be willing to accept fuzzy corners even when the aperture is stopped down.
I am far from an expert in lens design. But I now appreciate why ultra wide angle lenses have a protruding front element and usually weigh quite a bit. You really need all those extra glasses to correct for lens defects. It's a shame that Laowa has blatantly ignored that in their 10mm f/2.8.
Thank you, Christopher, for your timely review. This lens is a BIG NO for me! 🚫⛔
For me all this pictures look pretty distorted !
I cannot imagine that anybody can make nice pictures with this lens !
I completely disagree on the distortion, this lens has the typical wide lens distortion outside the 1/3rds rule, especially when on angles looking up or down. My view of a lamp shows the lamp shade drastically increasing in size when panning the lamp to the left or right of center.
When looking down the lamp shade looks elongated with a tiny base making a 2 ft lamp look 5ft tall.
I like the lens, however having already owned a 16mm with absolutely no distortion, I expected more from this lens.
There are two lenses with 9mm. Lowa is not the widest. And there seems to exist sample variations. Richard Wongs's reviews reported not so good center and better corners
01:37
@@christopherfrostwhat about a comparison with them since they share almost the same fov?
The bokeh looks better than ttartisan 10mm
"Highly recommanded" is surprising given the visual shortcomings. The price for such a lens is also completely unacceptable. I use LAOWA's 7.5 mm manual lens with my MFT cameras and enjoy the sharpness, contrast, speed and bokeh without any vignetting. I am patiently waiting for the AF version. The tested 10 mm is unfortunately not yet available for MFT, but the 7.5 mm lens would be better. MFT users long for a strict wide-angle lens that is not tamed to "normal" by the crop factor 2.
A 7.5mm lens on a mft has a fov of 110° vs this 10mm lens on a ff, has a fov of 130.4°
I have been using a Canon RF10mm f4 rectilinear on my R5 FF for many months now, also with a fov of 130°. Sharp as a tack.
Seems okay, and I know its not exactly apples to apples, but I got that Viltrox 16mm 1.8 and dang I think its much better than this
When taking samples from the industry please double down on how critical you are of the lens.
Canon didn't allow the auto focusing because they know people would rush to buy this instead of their lenses haha
Glad I got my sigma…
Can't say I've seen pentagon bokeh before
No sale, not auto for L, that sucks..
Steuber Park
Love canon but they have to start swallowing their pride. So many people are jumping ship to sony who want to stay with canon due to the 3rd party issues.
Why cant you borrow or rent a more current Sony camera than the A7RII for your tests. Testing on an A7RII is THREE generations older Autofocus performance. It really diminishes the relevance of your reviews IMHO. FYI, I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9, A7RIV, and currently have A1, A7RV, A9III. The much better AF of the later models makes a HUGE difference in current lens AF speed and performance. BTW, I have ordered this lens after watching reviews from others tested with more current gear. Cheers
close up shots with all that bokeh at such a wide angle make the images look ai generated
man... L mount version being manual focus only is so stupid
L-mount alliance refused the small Chinese makers, and Canon is closed party
Bummer. I hav e Nikon D850.
Each of new interesting lens convinces me more to drop Canon :( shame, comfy camera
Not for fullframe?
It says full frame in the title even.
Am i the only one that thinks that this lens produces very cheap looking pictures and terrible colors.
Try the Voigtlander 10mm, it`s f5.6 manual but it will blow this lens away in picture quality.
not so good ，But incredible wide
Landscape don't need large aperture
Generic comment from random guy.
Another P.O.S. electronic aperture lens.👎