I like your take on diffraction. As I was listening to your comments, I started to wonder if diffraction could, at least in part be corrected with programs such a Sharpen AI.
There's a lot can be done to 'fix' aspects of image softness these days - I've a video coming up looking at how I handle images from 'older' lenses. Looking at the before/after 20-35 shots in the review reminded me just how far lens design and software has advanced in the last 15 years...
BTW the comment about astrophotography is very relevant. The 2.8 aperture would make it unique in the GFX world. I have hear (but not tried it yet) that the 20-35 shows no coma. The impression I get from you review and others suggests the at 2.8 performs poorly in the corners. But perhaps I am wrong. Would love it if you could take a trip out of town ( I have the same issue) to test it, but that is an excessive request!!
A quick test from our loft window suggests, at f/2.8, noticeable batwing coma. Not huge, but similar to when I tested the 12mm f/2.8 a while ago [see the examples at] www.northlight-images.co.uk/review-laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d-lens/ But that was not on a tripod (~2sec 1600 ISO) and without optimum focus setting, so I'll not be posting these pics. Any use at other than f/2.8 would show the effects of the 5 blade aperture.
Thank you for, as always, for the right review! I understand that it is not worth shooting with this lens at 2.8-5.6 apertures (not to mention 2.8 for astrophotography), but it would be very interesting to know your opinion about the difference in the quality of this lens and fuji 20-35 at a focal length of 20 mm at apertures about 8-11 (sharpness in the center and at the edges, micro contrast, etc.). PS I looked at your written review and comparison of the two lenses on 5.6. Of course, there are small differences, I think generally in favor of Fuji 20-35 mm, but they are not so strong. I think the center of sharpness on Laowa was a little closer than on Fuji. I will be waiting for your additional comparisons!
Ah, there won't be much more - the lens is on its way to someone else to review. I really don't think there is much more to be gained from the test shots - such comparisons (of single sample lenses shot outdoors) are for indicative use only - beyond that, people will try and read into them what isn't justified. For example - I've no idea what 'microcontrast' actually means - much depends on image processing, that and it means something different to everyone I've ever heard use the term ;-)
Keith, you briefly touched on the issue of lens corrections and how they can "correct" or mask inherent lens anomalies, How do you feel about current and older lenses that dont have lens profiles available for them? Are we to some extent being "sold" on software fixes for lenses rather than real performance of the optics themselves? I suspect that many lenses we might be told are "old" and not worthy of putting on our digital cameras, are actually quite good (flaws defects in performance and all)....and might be even better performers if lens profiles were available for them.
It's an interesting question - I still make use of adapted lenses, which don't have profiles. The 'fixes' for lenses can also be an integral part of lens/system design (think phone cameras). There are all kinds of compromises made in wide lens design - you fix one aspect and others get worse. If you use software to fix geometry and vignetting, then you can optimise a lens for sharpness and other aberrations. It should be possible to create some profiles for the 19mm, but of course, with no EXIF to drive automatic adjustments, it will always be less precise/effective. This is quite a complex area - something I perhaps ought to address in a future video!
@@KeithCooper Your further observations on this topic would be enlightening....I really enjoy your no nonsense commentary....esp the "It depends" and "what does fine art" really mean
Thanks for a great, well thought out review. I also shoot a lot of architecture & interiors, and was thinking about trading in my 23mm for the new Fuji 20-35. I’d need to stump up £1000 for that…pretty much the price of this lens. The 23 isn’t quite wide enough for some interior work (I use Fuji’s X system for that) so this Laowa lens presents a very interesting option. I’m a big fan of crisp sunstars (something the 23 isn’t great at) so much food for thought there. I will read your written review with interest…
Thanks - there is a thread about this on DPR where I posted a full res jpeg of an image from the lens www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66696558 I'm also testing the Laowa 15mm shift - a bit too wide for many uses, but I'd like to see how the GFX version of the Laowa 20mm shift would perform. The 19 is nice, but I'm too used to using shift lenses ;-)
Very interesting. With such a large initial aperture I wonder what it's performance is like for astrophotography, in particular coma towards the corners? If it's good I can see it being popular.
11?? Details you'll need someone who does technical reviews and photos of test charts for ;-) I don't have the patience for such stuff (or multiple lenses and suitable measurement eqpt.)
Thank you for review!
Thanks - glad it was of interest.
I like your take on diffraction. As I was listening to your comments, I started to wonder if diffraction could, at least in part be corrected with programs such a Sharpen AI.
There's a lot can be done to 'fix' aspects of image softness these days - I've a video coming up looking at how I handle images from 'older' lenses.
Looking at the before/after 20-35 shots in the review reminded me just how far lens design and software has advanced in the last 15 years...
BTW the comment about astrophotography is very relevant. The 2.8 aperture would make it unique in the GFX world. I have hear (but not tried it yet) that the 20-35 shows no coma. The impression I get from you review and others suggests the at 2.8 performs poorly in the corners. But perhaps I am wrong. Would love it if you could take a trip out of town ( I have the same issue) to test it, but that is an excessive request!!
A quick test from our loft window suggests, at f/2.8, noticeable batwing coma. Not huge, but similar to when I tested the 12mm f/2.8 a while ago [see the examples at]
www.northlight-images.co.uk/review-laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d-lens/
But that was not on a tripod (~2sec 1600 ISO) and without optimum focus setting, so I'll not be posting these pics.
Any use at other than f/2.8 would show the effects of the 5 blade aperture.
Some star examples posted on DPR
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66703695
Thank you for, as always, for the right review! I understand that it is not worth shooting with this lens at 2.8-5.6 apertures (not to mention 2.8 for astrophotography), but it would be very interesting to know your opinion about the difference in the quality of this lens and fuji 20-35 at a focal length of 20 mm at apertures about 8-11 (sharpness in the center and at the edges, micro contrast, etc.). PS I looked at your written review and comparison of the two lenses on 5.6. Of course, there are small differences, I think generally in favor of Fuji 20-35 mm, but they are not so strong. I think the center of sharpness on Laowa was a little closer than on Fuji. I will be waiting for your additional comparisons!
Ah, there won't be much more - the lens is on its way to someone else to review.
I really don't think there is much more to be gained from the test shots - such comparisons (of single sample lenses shot outdoors) are for indicative use only - beyond that, people will try and read into them what isn't justified.
For example - I've no idea what 'microcontrast' actually means - much depends on image processing, that and it means something different to everyone I've ever heard use the term ;-)
Keith, you briefly touched on the issue of lens corrections and how they can "correct" or mask inherent lens anomalies, How do you feel about current and older lenses that dont have lens profiles available for them? Are we to some extent being "sold" on software fixes for lenses rather than real performance of the optics themselves? I suspect that many lenses we might be told are "old" and not worthy of putting on our digital cameras, are actually quite good (flaws defects in performance and all)....and might be even better performers if lens profiles were available for them.
It's an interesting question - I still make use of adapted lenses, which don't have profiles.
The 'fixes' for lenses can also be an integral part of lens/system design (think phone cameras).
There are all kinds of compromises made in wide lens design - you fix one aspect and others get worse. If you use software to fix geometry and vignetting, then you can optimise a lens for sharpness and other aberrations.
It should be possible to create some profiles for the 19mm, but of course, with no EXIF to drive automatic adjustments, it will always be less precise/effective.
This is quite a complex area - something I perhaps ought to address in a future video!
@@KeithCooper Your further observations on this topic would be enlightening....I really enjoy your no nonsense commentary....esp the "It depends" and "what does fine art" really mean
Thanks for a great, well thought out review. I also shoot a lot of architecture & interiors, and was thinking about trading in my 23mm for the new Fuji 20-35. I’d need to stump up £1000 for that…pretty much the price of this lens. The 23 isn’t quite wide enough for some interior work (I use Fuji’s X system for that) so this Laowa lens presents a very interesting option. I’m a big fan of crisp sunstars (something the 23 isn’t great at) so much food for thought there. I will read your written review with interest…
Thanks - there is a thread about this on DPR where I posted a full res jpeg of an image from the lens
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66696558
I'm also testing the Laowa 15mm shift - a bit too wide for many uses, but I'd like to see how the GFX version of the Laowa 20mm shift would perform.
The 19 is nice, but I'm too used to using shift lenses ;-)
Very interesting. With such a large initial aperture I wonder what it's performance is like for astrophotography, in particular coma towards the corners? If it's good I can see it being popular.
I will try this at some point, but I live in the middle of a big city...
just subscribed!! Anyway, is there a way to use the gfx100s in S35mm mode or ff? I would like to use my S35 cinema lenses with a special PL adaper
Thanks - You'll need to read the manual I'm afraid - I'm not testing any video aspects of the camera ;-)
Keith, how would you compare this 19/2.8 to laowa’s 17/4? Thanks, I’m trying not to have to buy the Fuji gf 20-35.
No idea I'm afraid - never tried a 17
11 (sharpness in the center and at the edges, micro contrast, etc.).
11??
Details you'll need someone who does technical reviews and photos of test charts for ;-)
I don't have the patience for such stuff (or multiple lenses and suitable measurement eqpt.)