Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D reviewed

[Vieri]

For my Fine Art Landscape work, I find ultra-wide-angle lenses to be wonderful creative tools because of the different “view of the world” they provide: see in this Venus Optics Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D in-depth review my thoughts about this relatively new and promising addition to the ultra-wide pool, and about its place in a Fine Art Landscape photographer’s bag.

While I reviewed it adapted for my Leica SL, the lens is available in Sony mount as well, so I thought it might be relevant:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/venus-optics-laowa-12mm-f-2-8-zero-d-in-depth-review.html

Thank you for reading, best regards,

Vieri

 

[Bob Israel]

I had the Laowa 12/2.8 for a short time. I like the lens a lot stopped down but on my copy, the corners were very soft wide open to the point that I returned the lens. Perhaps, I was asking for too much but compared to the Laowa 15/2 and any of the Voigtlander superwides, I was a bit disappointed with the lens for my uses.

 

[Vieri]

I had the Laowa 12/2.8 for a short time. I like the lens a lot stopped down but on my copy, the corners were very soft wide open to the point that I returned the lens. Perhaps, I was asking for too much but compared to the Laowa 15/2 and any of the Voigtlander superwides, I was a bit disappointed with the lens for my uses.

Hello Bob,

I don't want to be boring, so I will not repeat here what I already wrote in the review - corner performance is not perfect, but my copy seems to be quite good in the corners as well. What counts for me is performance at f/8 - f/11, and that is simply amazing, just perfect all over the frame. No distortion, no chromatic aberrations, great flare resistance and contrast, very little vignette and - especially - the possibility to easily use 100mm square filters - make this a winner for me, no comparison with the Voigtlander 10mm (which I just sold) or 12mm (which I got, tested, and sold about 1 year ago to keep the 10mm instead). You can see the Voigtlander 15mm compared in my Leica 16-35mm review here, to check it against the 12mm Laowa: https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05...l-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html. The Laowa wins hands down in the corners, IMHO. Of course, your requirements and, therefore, your solutions to them, might be different.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Bob Israel]

Hello Bob,

I don't want to be boring, so I will not repeat here what I already wrote in the review - corner performance is not perfect, but my copy seems to be quite good in the corners as well. What counts for me is performance at f/8 - f/11, and that is simply amazing, just perfect all over the frame. No distortion, no chromatic aberrations, great flare resistance and contrast, very little vignette and - especially - the possibility to easily use 100mm square filters - make this a winner for me, no comparison with the Voigtlander 10mm (which I just sold) or 12mm (which I got, tested, and sold about 1 year ago to keep the 10mm instead). You can see the Voigtlander 15mm compared in my Leica 16-35mm review here, to check it against the 12mm Laowa: https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05...l-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html. The Laowa wins hands down in the corners, IMHO. Of course, your requirements and, therefore, your solutions to them, might be different.

Best regards,

Vieri

I most certainly agree with your assessment. Stopped down, the lens is wonderful! I was hoping for a lens that wasn't too large that I could use for astrophotography and therefore shooting wide open. I also shoot in low light situations, hand held and that's where the soft corners were problematic. But yes, as a landscape lens, it produces some great images!

 

[Vieri]

I most certainly agree with your assessment. Stopped down, the lens is wonderful! I was hoping for a lens that wasn't too large that I could use for astrophotography and therefore shooting wide open. I also shoot in low light situations, hand held and that's where the soft corners were problematic. But yes, as a landscape lens, it produces some great images!

Bob, I think that for the size and price the lens is... amazing even wide open!

Jokes aside - in your previous message, you compared it with the Voigtlanders super-wides, and both the 10 and the 12mm are f/5.6: at f/5.6, the Laowa is more than acceptable and definitely better than both Voigts at equivalent apertures. However, with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 neither Voigt is ideal for night photography or hand-held photography in low light, IMHO.

I haven't tried the Laowa for astrophotography yet, will report once I did.

Since you also mentioned the Laowa 15/2, assuming that the difference in coverage (and there is quite a sizeable difference between 12mm and 15mm) is fine by you and for your requirements, you might want to try the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 instead - however, that is not so small, not filterable, and costs about 50% more than the Laowa 12mm... and I am not sure how much better the corners will be wide-open. I got a copy briefly, didn't test it thoroughly but my (admittedly non formal) tests told me that the corners were not tack sharp at f/1.8.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Bob Israel]

I was excited about the Sigma until I saw its size . . . way too big for my taste. I found the Laowa 15/2 to be a great compromise between size, focal length and corner resolution. I have a friend who owns it. I thought the corners were better than the 12/2.8 but then again, it's not as wide. Currently, I'm shooting the Rokinon 14/2.4 SP for astrophotography. It is bigger than the Laowa and it is much better than the Rokinon 14/2.8 especially since there are QC issues with this lens. It's a lens that is under the radar to most.

Perhaps I need to try another copy of the Laowa 12/2.8 . . .

 

[Vieri]

I was excited about the Sigma until I saw its size . . . way too big for my taste. I found the Laowa 15/2 to be a great compromise between size, focal length and corner resolution. I have a friend who owns it. I thought the corners were better than the 12/2.8 but then again, it's not as wide. Currently, I'm shooting the Rokinon 14/2.4 SP for astrophotography. It is bigger than the Laowa and it is much better than the Rokinon 14/2.8 especially since there are QC issues with this lens. It's a lens that is under the radar to most.

Perhaps I need to try another copy of the Laowa 12/2.8 . . .

Wel,, to me a 15/2 is not much different than a 16/2.8 (any 16-35mm f/2.8 would do, then) both in terms of coverage and speed; a 14/2.4 or 12/2.8 make much more sense in terms of differentiation from the 16-35mm. About giving the Laowa 12mm another go, well perhaps you had an earlier / worse / copy of the 12mm, since my copy doesn't look like it would be unusable wide open - especially for astrophotography, where you don't really need extremely sharp corners and where I think coma control is more important (I don't much like butterfly-looking stars). I hope to be able to test it in such conditions soon - even though, not being my bread-and-butter photography, that might take some time.

Best regards,

Vieri