For Micro Four Thirds, this lens is a no-brainer. One thing you forgot to mention: you can use lens filters with this lens without vignetting or the need to adapters to work around a curved front element - very unique and useful for a lens at that focal length.
A big shout out to Laowa for bringing us new lenses of differing speeds and focal lengths. Generally they seem well built for the price and do a good job.
Also of note, it takes a 58mm filter, which is very unusual for this wide a lens. And it focuses as close as about 3", which is great for landscapes because it allows such close foreground objects. And it's faster than most ultra-wide lenses, and it weighs practically nothing, and the build quality is excellent. I can see why it's not the best for video though, due to the distortion in the corners.
The OM 8mm f1.8 fisheye is considerably wider AFTER de-fishing. Resolution wise they are about the same but the 8mm has more even lighting that allows me to see into the shadows better. The OM1 in camera fisheye correction lets me use it like a normal wide angle lens. The lightroom Rikinon 8mm f2.8 fisheye profile does a perfect job of correcting the raw images.
I currently use a tamron 10 to 24 on a canon 80 D. I use it for internal architecture. It's great. Practically rectilinear. I was considering this for my new/ussed Lumix g9 but decided to use a 7 to 14 for it's range
Laowa makes some really fun lenses for very reasonable prices in various mounts. I have a bunch in Canon EF mount which an be converted to R if needs be. The wider lenses can have some seriously wicked defraction and chromatic aberration at the edges, but that can result in very esthetically pleasing art images.
The 12mm 'zero distortion' Dreamer is an awesome lens. I have the EF mount that I use with an adapter for BMPC 4K and also a Metabones for Sony E mount full frame.
An entire movie was filmed on a lens this wide. Here's a short documentary about it: th-cam.com/video/A2dq_7wu0Dw/w-d-xo.html I use a Laowa 9mm f2.8 Zero-D and it's unforgiving towards converging lines. There's also a huge amount of vignetting and color cast, but it's all fixable in post. It makes a great budget choice for beginners in architecture/real estate. My one gripe would be that being so small, it's virtually impossible to touch without messing up the rings' positions.Anyways, Laowa is treading that quirky ground of extremes and I'm really glad they're still in business.
Hyperfocal distance is the distance you set the lens to get the maximum depth of focus. When you set this lens to 0.5 m the depth of focus is NOT 0.5 m to infinity, but more likely 0.3 m to infinity.
Better than to use a hyperfocal distance, is to focus at the infinity or to furthest distance you want absolutely be in focus, and then adjust your aperture diameter to be in size that you want smallest detail to be resolved, this gives better sharpness across the depth than what hyperfocal distance does. So example with this 6 mm f/2 objective. You have a interior scene that has depth of 35 meters. You focus to 35 meters so your furhest part is in perfect focus. The f/2 on 6 mm objective means your aperture diameter is 3 mm, that means your objective resolve now sharp anything that is 3 mm in dimensions, but smaller gets blurry because circle of confusion. Set your aperture ratio to f/4 and now your aperture diameter is 1.5 mm, and you resolve everything that is 1.5 mm in diameter. Set to f/8 and you are at 0.75 mm circle of confusion dimensions. Everything from 35 meters to front of your objective lens is resolved as long it is 0.75 mm or larger. You can do that even by setting focus at infinity indoors, and it doesn't change, you get full acceptable depth of field from inifnity to first lens in your objective. Something that hyperfocal focusing can't do.
I know Laowa has a 12mm f2.8 dreamer that I think fits full frame. And I think they came out with a full frame 9mm f5.6 that is a non fisheye. Sounds interesting to me.
I'm using Irix 11mm F4.0 full frame lens on Nikon. I like it very much and I am surprised to realize it is wider that the one reviewed here, when put on micro 4/3. You're right with the 9mm: Laowa 9mm, 7Artisan 9mm and Brightin Star 9mm seem to be the widest Full Frame lenses (all manual, all F5.6, Philip Reeve compared them).
really like Sony FE 20mm 1.8 G for these kind of shots, it has incredibly straight image, but maybe 84 deg horizontal is not wide enough for your, and it doesn't fit BM cameras..
Just curious if anyone cares to comment - in relation to the Laowa 12mm - how is the flare at let's say f4? I currently own the Samyang 12mm and it is a flare Loch Ness monster even with the hood and stepped down to f8.
Love their 90mm 2x macro for FF. Random question, you've mentioned using the BlackMagic Pro 6k for your videos, Is the grain in this video from resolve or from the Raw footage? It's pretty pleasing so I was curious
A 6mm f2 m4/3 lens is only the same as a 12mm f4 lens on FF, and they aren't uncommon, although proudl probably costlier. Canon now make a 10-20mm f4, which is almost 20% wider
While the depth of field may be (only) comparable to F4 on FF (such as the F4 Canon you reference) DOF really isn't important on this type of lens. You're not looking for bokeh with a lens like this. It's not a portrait lens. In use, you will almost always be stopping it down anyway. Exposure wise, it's still F2 at its widest. DOF wise, it's still comparable to the F4 of the Canon. However, I believe Laowa does make a 10mm 2.8 FF rectilinear lens , and sigma makes a 10-18 2.8 for Sony.
For Micro Four Thirds, this lens is a no-brainer. One thing you forgot to mention: you can use lens filters with this lens without vignetting or the need to adapters to work around a curved front element - very unique and useful for a lens at that focal length.
A big shout out to Laowa for bringing us new lenses of differing speeds and focal lengths. Generally they seem well built for the price and do a good job.
Also of note, it takes a 58mm filter, which is very unusual for this wide a lens. And it focuses as close as about 3", which is great for landscapes because it allows such close foreground objects. And it's faster than most ultra-wide lenses, and it weighs practically nothing, and the build quality is excellent. I can see why it's not the best for video though, due to the distortion in the corners.
The OM 8mm f1.8 fisheye is considerably wider AFTER de-fishing. Resolution wise they are about the same but the 8mm has more even lighting that allows me to see into the shadows better. The OM1 in camera fisheye correction lets me use it like a normal wide angle lens. The lightroom Rikinon 8mm f2.8 fisheye profile does a perfect job of correcting the raw images.
I currently use a tamron 10 to 24 on a canon 80 D. I use it for internal architecture. It's great. Practically rectilinear. I was considering this for my new/ussed Lumix g9 but decided to use a 7 to 14 for it's range
Laowa makes some really fun lenses for very reasonable prices in various mounts. I have a bunch in Canon EF mount which an be converted to R if needs be. The wider lenses can have some seriously wicked defraction and chromatic aberration at the edges, but that can result in very esthetically pleasing art images.
Actual use is always better than a spec rundown or a subjective overview. I’ll always watch someone who actually uses the gear and what it was like
I agree, 6mm is too wide for property. My lens I use for real estate can go to 14mm wide but 16mm is the sweet spot. don't usually go wider than that.
The 12mm 'zero distortion' Dreamer is an awesome lens. I have the EF mount that I use with an adapter for BMPC 4K and also a Metabones for Sony E mount full frame.
There's a rokinon 8mm that's available in EF and F mount. I use it with my 6k a lot, but it's only f/3.5
ah the 3.5 probably wont be an issue for me to be fair ill go hgave a look at it.
An entire movie was filmed on a lens this wide. Here's a short documentary about it: th-cam.com/video/A2dq_7wu0Dw/w-d-xo.html
I use a Laowa 9mm f2.8 Zero-D and it's unforgiving towards converging lines. There's also a huge amount of vignetting and color cast, but it's all fixable in post. It makes a great budget choice for beginners in architecture/real estate.
My one gripe would be that being so small, it's virtually impossible to touch without messing up the rings' positions.Anyways, Laowa is treading that quirky ground of extremes and I'm really glad they're still in business.
Short and useful! Having some "real life" context is definitely helpful, as the technicalities can be found elsewhere.
Glad it was helpful!
Hyperfocal distance is the distance you set the lens to get the maximum depth of focus.
When you set this lens to 0.5 m the depth of focus is NOT 0.5 m to infinity, but more likely 0.3 m to infinity.
Better than to use a hyperfocal distance, is to focus at the infinity or to furthest distance you want absolutely be in focus, and then adjust your aperture diameter to be in size that you want smallest detail to be resolved, this gives better sharpness across the depth than what hyperfocal distance does.
So example with this 6 mm f/2 objective. You have a interior scene that has depth of 35 meters. You focus to 35 meters so your furhest part is in perfect focus.
The f/2 on 6 mm objective means your aperture diameter is 3 mm, that means your objective resolve now sharp anything that is 3 mm in dimensions, but smaller gets blurry because circle of confusion.
Set your aperture ratio to f/4 and now your aperture diameter is 1.5 mm, and you resolve everything that is 1.5 mm in diameter.
Set to f/8 and you are at 0.75 mm circle of confusion dimensions. Everything from 35 meters to front of your objective lens is resolved as long it is 0.75 mm or larger.
You can do that even by setting focus at infinity indoors, and it doesn't change, you get full acceptable depth of field from inifnity to first lens in your objective. Something that hyperfocal focusing can't do.
I know Laowa has a 12mm f2.8 dreamer that I think fits full frame. And I think they came out with a full frame 9mm f5.6 that is a non fisheye. Sounds interesting to me.
I'm using Irix 11mm F4.0 full frame lens on Nikon. I like it very much and I am surprised to realize it is wider that the one reviewed here, when put on micro 4/3. You're right with the 9mm: Laowa 9mm, 7Artisan 9mm and Brightin Star 9mm seem to be the widest Full Frame lenses (all manual, all F5.6, Philip Reeve compared them).
really like Sony FE 20mm 1.8 G for these kind of shots, it has incredibly straight image, but maybe 84 deg horizontal is not wide enough for your, and it doesn't fit BM cameras..
Just curious if anyone cares to comment - in relation to the Laowa 12mm - how is the flare at let's say f4? I currently own the Samyang 12mm and it is a flare Loch Ness monster even with the hood and stepped down to f8.
Love their 90mm 2x macro for FF.
Random question, you've mentioned using the BlackMagic Pro 6k for your videos, Is the grain in this video from resolve or from the Raw footage? It's pretty pleasing so I was curious
grains just from davinci's own grain settings banged up HIGH. Its a bit too sharp otherwise
I use the hell out of my Laowa 7.2, 2.8 on my Pocket 4k! I've got all my clients lovingly referring to it as the "baby dick lens."
A 6mm f2 m4/3 lens is only the same as a 12mm f4 lens on FF, and they aren't uncommon, although proudl probably costlier. Canon now make a 10-20mm f4, which is almost 20% wider
While the depth of field may be (only) comparable to F4 on FF (such as the F4 Canon you reference) DOF really isn't important on this type of lens. You're not looking for bokeh with a lens like this. It's not a portrait lens. In use, you will almost always be stopping it down anyway. Exposure wise, it's still F2 at its widest. DOF wise, it's still comparable to the F4 of the Canon. However, I believe Laowa does make a 10mm 2.8 FF rectilinear lens , and sigma makes a 10-18 2.8 for Sony.
Interesting lens!
fair
Instant buy if this was auto-focus.
laowa is pretty decent its not perfect but who is?
is this bad advice? or paid 'review'?