I've purchase this lens back in july.... I was affraid if manual focus would be a problem. Far from that, it is nowadays my favorite lens (And I work with a RF 28-70 f2) but this lens it's simply bringing dream-like aesthetic to my work. I'll purchase it instantly again if someday it get broken. No mention the plus of light in lowlight venues!
Between this and the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95, affordable ultrafast lenses are getting better and better! They certainly leave the Canon 50mm f/1 in the dust. If these lenses continue to improve they may enter "no-brainer" territory in some years time.
I recently chose the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 over this lens, mainly due to the rendering of the over all image, but this lens looks like it could be nice.
At the 2:00 mark in the video, the comparison between the Laowa f/0.95 at 1/100th sec. and the Sigma f/1.4 at 1/60th sec. shows the former falling short, based on shutter speed alone, by about 1/3rd of a stop. In addition, its f/0.95 aperture is perhaps about 1/6th of a stop faster than f/1.0 (which is one stop down from Sigma's f/1.4). Adding those two shortfalls---0.33 (or 1/3rd of a stop) plus 0.17 (or 1/6th of a stop)---makes a total shortfall of half a stop (0.50) for the Laowa. And finally, the Laowa image is still not quite as bright as the Sigma image (compare the brightnesses of the wood in the two photos). In all, then, using the Sigma lens at f/1.4 as a reference point, the Laowa lens falls short of a true f/0.95 aperture by at least a half stop, and perhaps slightly more. I've tested the comparable (to Laowa) TT Artisan 50mm f/0.95 lens at each aperture (counting down, or opening up) from f/5.6 to f/0.95, using compensatory, stop-by-stop, faster shutter speeds to precisely offset the aperture changes, and have found that at each of the five steps, the resulting photo becomes slightly darker. I have not gone beyond that discovery to quantify exactly what the total light loss added up to, but it is clear that neither of these two Chinese f/0.95 lenses comes close to providing a true f/0.95 (or even f/1.0) maximum aperture.
Vignetting takes plenty of light away, it's normal. Also sigma 40 is a much overbuilt lens, it has circle of light that covers medium format, so worst vignette is out of the full frame sensor area.
I have a question for you first off I like your reviews of camera equipment I find you unbiased my question is if Nikon has a larger mount for the z camera system how come the 16-50 50-250 have such a lower f stop f6.3 it would be nice to see f4.5 or 5.6 at least you would think if the mount size has increased it would allow more light or maybe it cost more to use those f stops
These lenses are pretty good, got 35mm, one thing you didint mention is the aperture blades, it has plenty of those to have a round bokeh even at f5,6 or so. Pretty good. The focus ring throw back is a bit annoying to get used to, but then again it has to be that way due to narrow focus field at 0,95f. The size is pretty good to, well compared to sigma 35mm 1,2f art or the 40mm 1,4f that you used. Manual focusing is good, due to good lens sharpness, I also got mitakon speedmaster 50mm 0,95f, it is a bit less sharp wide open and focus peeking is abit more tricky with it. This one is also one of the few 45mm lenses available for FF format, not many manufacturer actually make 40 or 45mm fix lenses. I believe there are like three different 45mm lenses currently made. The bokeh look good on these lenses, although may look a bit flat if you are used to the old school lenses. This stand for majority of modern fast 50`s as well including mitakon. Less abberations, more sharpness mean less 3D effect and more smooth backgrounds, sometimes they start to look artificial that way...
Hmm... I like the 45mm focal length more than either 35 or 50, so that's quite compelling. I wonder how different it is from the Brightin Star 50mm. Close up image quality and rendering seem better, which is the main point of such a lens.
Would you please be so kind to explain what you mean by "focus breeding"? I had assumed that this term described the ambivalent back and forth of an autofocus. But this Laowa 45 mm f0.95 has a manual one.
It is the change of focal length when you focus close compared to focusing far away :) thus the "breathing" eg a lot of lenses show larger field of view(shorter focal length) when focusing closer. Canons rf 70-200 mm lenses are good examples. Gordon laing have a video comparing them to the ef versions :)
Any chance we can get a quick comparison video of this lens and the 35mm 0.95 that Laowa also offers. Focal length wise the lenses are similar enough that if I was going to get one it'd come down to whichever had the better image quality performance, even if the differences were marginal.
the difference is indeed rather marginal and the overall rendering look and feel is close to the same. the 35 has the same lower contrast wide open, which makes a huge step at f1.2 (i almost always use it at that aperture), very similar red round flares against a lightsource and nice melty bokeh. the 45 of course is a bit in the advantage in that regard because of the longer focal range. you can simply choose which focal length suits your style the most.
Hi Chris. Do you actually find focus peaking useful for lenses such as these? I cannot dream of manually focusing anywhere near to what auofocus can achieve, so for me focus peaking would be the only and critically necessary tool in the toolbox to get anywhere to sharp photos...
Focus peaking is sooo helpful and focusing is so easier with these fast lenses. I use 50mm f/1.05 and especially when shooting on monocrhomatic mode it's amazing 😌
Focus peaking on the full view of the picture frame is useful in a pinch, or if you're stopping down the lens some. For super-fine focus with very fast lenses, I tend to magnify the view and spot-focus on the particular thing I want the sharpest. Takes a little longer but the results are usually better.
I find it funny that Christopher can say “I enjoy using this lens” and the comments are immediately speculating that *nobody* can enjoy using the lens.
I had the 35mm version and I enjoyed the challenge of using it. Though not a practical lens, it reminds me a lot of using a Fuji camera with all the manual dials. You slow down, turn all the manual dials and really focus on the shot. And then take a few more lol. Once you nail it though, it’s really rewarding.
I would like to see you test an old Leica Noctilux. This was the doyenne of fast lenses for many years but I have a feeling it's not that good by modern standards. Some of these fast lenses you have been testing might compete well against it. People forgave the Noctilux a lot for the aperture.
@@christopherfrost Not as good as your reviews and thats the current Noctilux. The 70s/80s one was not as good and some of these cheaper ones stand up well against that one - I think, but without a test like yours its hard to be sure. Your reviews are the gold standard really.
No offense to you . but always you have the chance to review some nice lense or "unique lenses". that would be sweet if you could take way more portrait in your review. Specially for lenses with 0.95. Because for example i have a 25 0.95 on m4/3 i ofc use it for videography for some close up nothing more than 5 m away from camera. It would be cool to see if the lens got the "character " we are looking for and not only the sharpness or no CA .
Oh waw, this seems to the best 0.95 lens we have so far but still too expensive for manual lens. (The Nikon one is not even existing in my universe ;D) 7artisans's 50mm option is still better for its price for f/1.05 that I'm mentioning for 100th time, lol. 7artisans, sponsor me pls, lol
I just picked one up, and I’m mostly impressed, but here’s the deal: It’s a heavy lens that’s manually focused. I can accept one or the other - but not both. When an autofocus version that’s significantly lighter becomes available - and at a reasonable price - it’ll be a killer lens. That 0.95 is all the reason you need to get this lens.
Except for some highly specialized lenses, manual focus has been out for me ever since my first digital camera. Autofocus, particularly these days, is better than manual, even with that focus dot. From watching you turn the focus ring, it seems to be pretty darn stiff. Not fond of stiff focusing rings. With the price being what it is, I’d love to see an auto focus version for maybe $200 more. If they could get the info they need for that. The performance seems to be decent, with some lovely rendering in higher light levels. Not much worse than the $10,000 50mm f0.95 Nikkor. And hopefully more reliable than the $12,000 Leica version.
Pretty much all these ultrafast lenses provide good IQ only stopped down maybe 2 or 3 stops. So, it begs the question - why bother at all? Just buy an AF 1.4 one, that is pretty good even wide open and much easier/practical to use...
Because not everyone buys lenses for superb iq. Videographers will buy wider aperture with soft lenses for dreamy work. Plenty of niche genres seek out these characteristics specifically to the point that niche probably isn't an applicable word. Takes about 2 seconds of thought.
you buy those lenses for the look and feel they provide. its not about IQ. the laowas are also very nice for videowork because of their long focus throw and very pleasing soft rendering. i love using my 35 0.95 over the - in every respect superior - sigma 35 1.4 for that. that said even wide open the IQ is far away from terrible and very usable, unlike some cheaper ultra fast chinese lenses f.e. from 7artisans.
"Argus" comes from Greek. And to be very exact from ancient Greek. It means "the one that's very bright" So that makes sense since it's a very wide aperture lens...As a Greek I find it very strange that they know such things...very interesting...plus their new anamorphic lens called "proteus" also from Greek.
1. Chris you're just churning these reviews out. Beast mode.
Hopefully some day we get an AF version of one of these F/0.95 lenses! That'd be sweet!
There is only one that was ever produced an it was from canon. Chris mentioned it in a different video. Unfortunatly it was not good.
@@ghoststalker383 it was the Canon 50mm f/1.0 not f/0.95
No AF f/0.95 lens exist.
Thanks
Thanks!
I've purchase this lens back in july.... I was affraid if manual focus would be a problem. Far from that, it is nowadays my favorite lens (And I work with a RF 28-70 f2) but this lens it's simply bringing dream-like aesthetic to my work. I'll purchase it instantly again if someday it get broken. No mention the plus of light in lowlight venues!
Between this and the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95, affordable ultrafast lenses are getting better and better! They certainly leave the Canon 50mm f/1 in the dust.
If these lenses continue to improve they may enter "no-brainer" territory in some years time.
Yes, typical Chinese products... They are cheap to begin with, then slowly progress to be better while the price still low.
Nice, I love this kind of old lenses for modern cameras
Many thanks for your testing about this Lens Christopher.
Stay healty.
Kindly regard,
Andreas
I recently chose the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 over this lens, mainly due to the rendering of the over all image, but this lens looks like it could be nice.
Excellent video 😊!
Always a great review
i wounder if any of these 0.95 lenses would be fun for astro photography
At the 2:00 mark in the video, the comparison between the Laowa f/0.95 at 1/100th sec. and the Sigma f/1.4 at 1/60th sec. shows the former falling short, based on shutter speed alone, by about 1/3rd of a stop. In addition, its f/0.95 aperture is perhaps about 1/6th of a stop faster than f/1.0 (which is one stop down from Sigma's f/1.4). Adding those two shortfalls---0.33 (or 1/3rd of a stop) plus 0.17 (or 1/6th of a stop)---makes a total shortfall of half a stop (0.50) for the Laowa. And finally, the Laowa image is still not quite as bright as the Sigma image (compare the brightnesses of the wood in the two photos). In all, then, using the Sigma lens at f/1.4 as a reference point, the Laowa lens falls short of a true f/0.95 aperture by at least a half stop, and perhaps slightly more. I've tested the comparable (to Laowa) TT Artisan 50mm f/0.95 lens at each aperture (counting down, or opening up) from f/5.6 to f/0.95, using compensatory, stop-by-stop, faster shutter speeds to precisely offset the aperture changes, and have found that at each of the five steps, the resulting photo becomes slightly darker. I have not gone beyond that discovery to quantify exactly what the total light loss added up to, but it is clear that neither of these two Chinese f/0.95 lenses comes close to providing a true f/0.95 (or even f/1.0) maximum aperture.
Vignetting takes plenty of light away, it's normal. Also sigma 40 is a much overbuilt lens, it has circle of light that covers medium format, so worst vignette is out of the full frame sensor area.
Need to test this lens out for myself with Astrophotography. Good focal length.
How would you compare the 45mm and the 35mm from Venus? I am going to buy one but don't know which.
Was this a reupload?
I seem to remember watching it and wanting the lens
I guess, this was 35mm one, reviewed 7 days ago.
Checking his playlist would've cost you less time than writing this and waiting for a reply, lol. Laowa has 33mm, 35mm and 45mm f/0.95 so... Yeah
@@dicekolev5360 beware the 33mm is for APSC sensor while both the 35 and 45 are for full frame.
I have a question for you first off I like your reviews of camera equipment I find you unbiased my question is if Nikon has a larger mount for the z camera system how come the 16-50 50-250 have such a lower f stop f6.3 it would be nice to see f4.5 or 5.6 at least you would think if the mount size has increased it would allow more light or maybe it cost more to use those f stops
Those mentioned lenses are simply designed to be small, light and affordable. The mount diameter has nothing to do with their small aperture.
These lenses are pretty good, got 35mm, one thing you didint mention is the aperture blades, it has plenty of those to have a round bokeh even at f5,6 or so. Pretty good. The focus ring throw back is a bit annoying to get used to, but then again it has to be that way due to narrow focus field at 0,95f.
The size is pretty good to, well compared to sigma 35mm 1,2f art or the 40mm 1,4f that you used. Manual focusing is good, due to good lens sharpness, I also got mitakon speedmaster 50mm 0,95f, it is a bit less sharp wide open and focus peeking is abit more tricky with it.
This one is also one of the few 45mm lenses available for FF format, not many manufacturer actually make 40 or 45mm fix lenses. I believe there are like three different 45mm lenses currently made.
The bokeh look good on these lenses, although may look a bit flat if you are used to the old school lenses. This stand for majority of modern fast 50`s as well including mitakon. Less abberations, more sharpness mean less 3D effect and more smooth backgrounds, sometimes they start to look artificial that way...
So it has CA in all f stops ???
Hmm... I like the 45mm focal length more than either 35 or 50, so that's quite compelling. I wonder how different it is from the Brightin Star 50mm. Close up image quality and rendering seem better, which is the main point of such a lens.
Would you please be so kind to explain what you mean by "focus breeding"? I had assumed that this term described the ambivalent back and forth of an autofocus. But this Laowa 45 mm f0.95 has a manual one.
lol... Breathing.
@@rock3times Thanks for translating ;o). You won't try an answer, do you.
It is the change of focal length when you focus close compared to focusing far away :) thus the "breathing" eg a lot of lenses show larger field of view(shorter focal length) when focusing closer. Canons rf 70-200 mm lenses are good examples. Gordon laing have a video comparing them to the ef versions :)
@@martinrosen9742 I see! Thank you.
Amazing video!!!
hii Chris please review following lenes if possible
1. Sony 70 200 f2.8 GM
2. Sony 24 70 F2.8 GM
Any chance we can get a quick comparison video of this lens and the 35mm 0.95 that Laowa also offers. Focal length wise the lenses are similar enough that if I was going to get one it'd come down to whichever had the better image quality performance, even if the differences were marginal.
the difference is indeed rather marginal and the overall rendering look and feel is close to the same. the 35 has the same lower contrast wide open, which makes a huge step at f1.2 (i almost always use it at that aperture), very similar red round flares against a lightsource and nice melty bokeh. the 45 of course is a bit in the advantage in that regard because of the longer focal range.
you can simply choose which focal length suits your style the most.
Hi Chris. Do you actually find focus peaking useful for lenses such as these? I cannot dream of manually focusing anywhere near to what auofocus can achieve, so for me focus peaking would be the only and critically necessary tool in the toolbox to get anywhere to sharp photos...
Focus peaking is sooo helpful and focusing is so easier with these fast lenses. I use 50mm f/1.05 and especially when shooting on monocrhomatic mode it's amazing 😌
Focus peaking on the full view of the picture frame is useful in a pinch, or if you're stopping down the lens some. For super-fine focus with very fast lenses, I tend to magnify the view and spot-focus on the particular thing I want the sharpest. Takes a little longer but the results are usually better.
These lenses are pretty sharp wide open so focus peeking works pretty well with them
I’d buy this lens for the flaring and vignetting as it adds character. A perfect f0.95 lens is going to look pretty boring apart from the shallow DoF.
I find it funny that Christopher can say “I enjoy using this lens” and the comments are immediately speculating that *nobody* can enjoy using the lens.
Chris is so diplomatic.
If you don't mind manual focus (and I and many other photographers don't mind it at all) then it's great fun
I had the 35mm version and I enjoyed the challenge of using it. Though not a practical lens, it reminds me a lot of using a Fuji camera with all the manual dials. You slow down, turn all the manual dials and really focus on the shot. And then take a few more lol. Once you nail it though, it’s really rewarding.
I would like to see you test an old Leica Noctilux. This was the doyenne of fast lenses for many years but I have a feeling it's not that good by modern standards. Some of these fast lenses you have been testing might compete well against it. People forgave the Noctilux a lot for the aperture.
There's a review over on Opticallimits I think
@@christopherfrost Not as good as your reviews and thats the current Noctilux. The 70s/80s one was not as good and some of these cheaper ones stand up well against that one - I think, but without a test like yours its hard to be sure. Your reviews are the gold standard really.
No offense to you . but always you have the chance to review some nice lense or "unique lenses". that would be sweet if you could take way more portrait in your review. Specially for lenses with 0.95.
Because for example i have a 25 0.95 on m4/3 i ofc use it for videography for some close up nothing more than 5 m away from camera.
It would be cool to see if the lens got the "character " we are looking for and not only the sharpness or no CA .
The CA is very noticeable
NO L-mount !?!?
Oh waw, this seems to the best 0.95 lens we have so far but still too expensive for manual lens. (The Nikon one is not even existing in my universe ;D) 7artisans's 50mm option is still better for its price for f/1.05 that I'm mentioning for 100th time, lol. 7artisans, sponsor me pls, lol
at some point i was thinking, didn't i just watch this a week ago?
I’d love it if you could do a video explaining the terminology you use! It would be super useful to better understand your reviews!
At my age, I’ve started liking good videos. Didn’t give a fuck at age 39…. Five months ago.
I just picked one up, and I’m mostly impressed, but here’s the deal: It’s a heavy lens that’s manually focused. I can accept one or the other - but not both.
When an autofocus version that’s significantly lighter becomes available - and at a reasonable price - it’ll be a killer lens. That 0.95 is all the reason you need to get this lens.
Except for some highly specialized lenses, manual focus has been out for me ever since my first digital camera. Autofocus, particularly these days, is better than manual, even with that focus dot.
From watching you turn the focus ring, it seems to be pretty darn stiff. Not fond of stiff focusing rings. With the price being what it is, I’d love to see an auto focus version for maybe $200 more. If they could get the info they need for that.
The performance seems to be decent, with some lovely rendering in higher light levels. Not much worse than the $10,000 50mm f0.95 Nikkor. And hopefully more reliable than the $12,000 Leica version.
👍👍👍👍👍
Loving your new logo! I salute the heroic people of Ukraine! ❤️
Pretty much all these ultrafast lenses provide good IQ only stopped down maybe 2 or 3 stops. So, it begs the question - why bother at all? Just buy an AF 1.4 one, that is pretty good even wide open and much easier/practical to use...
Because not everyone buys lenses for superb iq. Videographers will buy wider aperture with soft lenses for dreamy work. Plenty of niche genres seek out these characteristics specifically to the point that niche probably isn't an applicable word.
Takes about 2 seconds of thought.
you buy those lenses for the look and feel they provide. its not about IQ. the laowas are also very nice for videowork because of their long focus throw and very pleasing soft rendering. i love using my 35 0.95 over the - in every respect superior - sigma 35 1.4 for that.
that said even wide open the IQ is far away from terrible and very usable, unlike some cheaper ultra fast chinese lenses f.e. from 7artisans.
Thank you for another excellence. You just save me 800 $.
im never a fan of manual lens, its just gonna slow me down!
Naming it "Argus" doesn't sound appealing.
Sounds like an email address from an early 2000s kid.
"Argus" comes from Greek. And to be very exact from ancient Greek. It means "the one that's very bright" So that makes sense since it's a very wide aperture lens...As a Greek I find it very strange that they know such things...very interesting...plus their new anamorphic lens called "proteus" also from Greek.
Thanks for updating your profile image! Glory to Ukraine!