Trevor R

Review of Laowa 17mm & Fuji 23mm GF lenses

First, the Fuji 23mm f/4 GF lens for the GFX cameras is excellent in all respects.  There is very slight vignetting at maximum aperture, but that is to be expected with such a wide-angle lens.

The 17mm Laowa lens is not in the same league.  No EXIF data on aperture transmitted to the camera, and there is significant vignetting at f/4 and f/5.6, with some vignetting even at f/11 – visible in test pictures of a brick wall, but not obvious in normal photography.  The resolution is good throughout and there is no linear distortion (e.g., barrel or pin-cushion), which is extremely important.

Contrast and saturation are lower with the Laowa 17mm lens than with the Fuji 23mm lens, but these can easily be corrected in Photoshop.

With my test pictures of the brick wall, I found that the following Photoshop settings produced an image from the 17mm Laowa lens with characteristics that were very similar to those of the Fuji 23mm GF lens.
Brightness & Contrast: Brightness: (unchanged) Contrast + 13
Colour balance: Midtones: +10 (more red, less cyan), 0 (Magenta/Green unchanged), -12 (more yellow, less blue)
Hue/Saturation: Master: Hue 0 (unchanged), Saturation +38
Vignetting (at f/11): Filter > Lens Correction > Custom > Vignette: +30 (lighten) Midpoint + 19

This may sound like a lot of correction, but it could be set up as an action in Photoshop, and it was only really necessary with my test pictures of the brick wall.  With normal pictures, a minor colour correction would produce an image that was a good colour match to images from the 23mm Fuji lens.

There is a total absence of chromatic aberrations with both lenses, and both of them produce images that have a similar degree of sharpness, with further sharpening not normally necessary.

The key fact is that the 17mm Laowa lens has an angle of view that is much, much wider than the 23mm Fujinon lens, and it corresponds more closely to the way I see scenes in landscapes and cityscapes.

Comparisons with so-called 35mm “full format” (36mm × 24mm) is complicated by the fact that the ratios of “35mm” and Fuji GFX images are different (3:2 vs 4:3).  In fact, if we reduce the height of the GFX image to achieve a 3:2 ratio, (approximately 44mm × 29mm), a large amount of the vignetting with the Laowa 17mm image disappears.

However, the angle of view for the 17mm Laowa is given as 113º, while the angle of view for the 23mm Fujinon is given as 99.9º.  This places the Laowa just slightly wider than the Voigtländer 15mm Super Wide Heliar (110º) on 36×24 format, and slightly narrower than the Voigtländer 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar (121º) on the same format.

The 99.9º of the 23mm Fujinon is significantly narrower than the 15mm Super Wide Heliar.

Both Laowa and Fuji give “full frame equivalent” focal lengths, though these are slightly complicated by the difference in format ratios.

Laowa states that its 17mm GF lens is equivalent to 13.5mm in full frame format, while Fuji states that its 23mm GF lens is equivalent to 18mm in full frame format.  This is of course extremely wide, compared with the wide angle lenses that were available in the film era, when 20mm was generally the widest, and it was not available in all mounts.

Which lens is “better”?  Technically, the Fujinon, but only the Laowa can give those ultra-wide vistas for landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes, and its technical deficiencies are easily corrected in post-production.  No amount of post-production can give a wider image than that which is given by the 23mm Fujinon (and stitching images taken with wide-angle lenses is extremely difficult without specialist software), so for me, for certain shots, the 17mm Laowa will be the lens of choice.

Using M42 and Pentacon Six lens adapters from Hartblei, I have done a series of tests on the GFX 50S of lenses for 35mm analogue cameras (24×36mm) and a couple of medium format (6×6) lenses.

The Carl Zeiss 20mm f/2.8 Flektogon might just about cover 65mm × 24mm at f/11 (the Hasselblad XPAN format) - disappointing, but to be expected.  It is not usable for the full sensor.
The old 25mm Zeiss Flektogon does not cover the format - not surprising.  This lens ceased production in 1967.
The 28mm Schneider-Kreuznach Super Angulon shift lens does cover the format (unshifted - shifts not tested) - so an excellent wide-angle lens for the GFX50S!
The 35mm Schneider-Kreuznach Curtagon possibly covers 65mm × 24mm at f/11 - a surprising disappointment - far too much vignetting
The 35mm f/2.4 Carl Zeiss Flektogon does cover the format, with minor correction for vignetting - quite good!
The 35mm Arax Tilt/Shift lens does cover the format as indeed it should, being a shift lens, but really only from f/8 with considerable fall-off in light intensity at wider apertures - disappointing
The 50mm Zeiss Pancolar possibly covers the format at f/8 and f/11 but there is barrel distortion. (I took pictures of a large  rick wall!)
The Pentacon Six 50mm Medium Format Carl Zeiss Flektogon should be much better - but not yet tested.
The 80mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss Pancolar (for 24×36) possibly covers the format with vignetting correction in the corners, but a Medium Format 80mm lens will be better.
I have an 80mm Planar (Medium Format) from West German Zeiss in a Pentacon Six mount.  It is very good from f/8 and would probably be very good at wider apertures by taking more time when focussing
The 120mm Vega 28B (Russian B ) in Pentacon Six/Kiev 60 mount is  very good and might become my default lens for the time being.

I have also tested some more 35mm-format ("full frame") lenses, all of which had good coverage: a Carl Zeiss 200mm f/2.8 Sonnar lens, a Pentacon 200mm f/4 lens and a 135mm Zeiss f/3.5 Sonnar lens - the best of the lot!  Could be a great portrait lens on this camera, and it is small and light-weight.
I hope to be able to test more lenses next week, but most of them are for analogue 6×6 cameras, so coverage should not be a problem.

I have three of the Hartblei Pentacon Six to Fuji GFX  adapters: simple adapter, shift adapter and tilt adapter.

With them a series of longer lenses can be used.  For instance the old Enna 400mm lens is excellent on the Pentacon Six and so will easily cover the GFX format.  See a review of it here: http://pentaconsix.com/enna.htm
There are two 500mm lenses for the Pentacon Six, the Pentacon lens, which is very heavy (3.5 kg) but excellent.  See here: http://pentaconsix.com/500_560mm.htm and the much harder-to-find 500mm Arsenal APO lens, see here: http://pentaconsix.com/500_600new1.htm  At 1650 grams, this is less than half the weight of the Pentacon lens.
The above pages also give information on other long lenses, including some mirror lenses, that would mount on the GFX via any of the same adapters.

I have tested the 500mm lens on a GFX 50S, even testing its coverage with the shift adapter.  This is what I found:
500mm Arsenal/Arsat APO lens
Zero shift: Excellent resolution and coverage.  Tiny amount of chromatic aberrations.
12mm shift in any direction causes corner cut-off.  12mm shift to L or R causes side cut-off and loss of resolution near the edge.
This is probably OK with shifts up to 6 or 8mm.

Since the above posting, I have taken a series of pictures of rooms in my home (we have been in lockdown!), using both the 23mm Fuji lens and the 17mm Laowa lens.  Both delivered excellent results, but I really got the best shots with the Laowa lens, as the angle of view is so much wider.  I will now definitely use the Laowa lens without any reservations or concerns, both for interiors and for outdoor shots (when they become possible, again!)

Trevor (back in lockdown after a short relaxation by the government)

Review of Laowa 17mm & Fuji 23mm GF lenses

First, the Fuji 23mm f/4 GF lens for the GFX cameras is excellent in all respects.  There is very slight vignetting at maximum aperture, but that is to be expected with such a wide-angle lens.

The 17mm Laowa lens is not in the same league.  No EXIF data on aperture transmitted to the camera, and there is significant vignetting at f/4 and f/5.6, with some vignetting even at f/11 – visible in test pictures of a brick wall, but not obvious in normal photography.  The resolution is good throughout and there is no linear distortion (e.g., barrel or pin-cushion), which is extremely important.

Contrast and saturation are lower with the Laowa 17mm lens than with the Fuji 23mm lens, but these can easily be corrected in Photoshop.

With my test pictures of the brick wall, I found that the following Photoshop settings produced an image from the 17mm Laowa lens with characteristics that were very similar to those of the Fuji 23mm GF lens.
Brightness & Contrast: Brightness: (unchanged) Contrast + 13
Colour balance: Midtones: +10 (more red, less cyan), 0 (Magenta/Green unchanged), -12 (more yellow, less blue)
Hue/Saturation: Master: Hue 0 (unchanged), Saturation +38
Vignetting (at f/11): Filter > Lens Correction > Custom > Vignette: +30 (lighten) Midpoint + 19

This may sound like a lot of correction, but it could be set up as an action in Photoshop, and it was only really necessary with my test pictures of the brick wall.  With normal pictures, a minor colour correction would produce an image that was a good colour match to images from the 23mm Fuji lens.

There is a total absence of chromatic aberrations with both lenses, and both of them produce images that have a similar degree of sharpness, with further sharpening not normally necessary.

The key fact is that the 17mm Laowa lens has an angle of view that is much, much wider than the 23mm Fujinon lens, and it corresponds more closely to the way I see scenes in landscapes and cityscapes.

Comparisons with so-called 35mm “full format” (36mm × 24mm) is complicated by the fact that the ratios of “35mm” and Fuji GFX images are different (3:2 vs 4:3).  In fact, if we reduce the height of the GFX image to achieve a 3:2 ratio, (approximately 44mm × 29mm), a large amount of the vignetting with the Laowa 17mm image disappears.

However, the angle of view for the 17mm Laowa is given as 113º, while the angle of view for the 23mm Fujinon is given as 99.9º.  This places the Laowa just slightly wider than the Voigtländer 15mm Super Wide Heliar (110º) on 36×24 format, and slightly narrower than the Voigtländer 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar (121º) on the same format.

The 99.9º of the 23mm Fujinon is significantly narrower than the 15mm Super Wide Heliar.

Both Laowa and Fuji give “full frame equivalent” focal lengths, though these are slightly complicated by the difference in format ratios.

Laowa states that its 17mm GF lens is equivalent to 13.5mm in full frame format, while Fuji states that its 23mm GF lens is equivalent to 18mm in full frame format.  This is of course extremely wide, compared with the wide angle lenses that were available in the film era, when 20mm was generally the widest, and it was not available in all mounts.

Which lens is “better”?  Technically, the Fujinon, but only the Laowa can give those ultra-wide vistas for landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes, and its technical deficiencies are easily corrected in post-production.  No amount of post-production can give a wider image than that which is given by the 23mm Fujinon (and stitching images taken with wide-angle lenses is extremely difficult without specialist software), so for me, for certain shots, the 17mm Laowa will be the lens of choice.

Review of Laowa 17mm & Fuji 23mm GF lenses

First, the Fuji 23mm f/4 GF lens for the GFX cameras is excellent in all respects.  There is very slight vignetting at maximum aperture, but that is to be expected with such a wide-angle lens.

The 17mm Laowa lens is not in the same league.  No EXIF data on aperture transmitted to the camera, and there is significant vignetting at f/4 and f/5.6, with some vignetting even at f/11 – visible in test pictures of a brick wall, but not obvious in normal photography.  The resolution is good throughout and there is no linear distortion (e.g., barrel or pin-cushion), which is extremely important.

Contrast and saturation are lower with the Laowa 17mm lens than with the Fuji 23mm lens, but these can easily be corrected in Photoshop.

With my test pictures of the brick wall, I found that the following Photoshop settings produced an image from the 17mm Laowa lens with characteristics that were very similar to those of the Fuji 23mm GF lens.
Brightness & Contrast: Brightness: (unchanged) Contrast + 13
Colour balance: Midtones: +10 (more red, less cyan), 0 (Magenta/Green unchanged), -12 (more yellow, less blue)
Hue/Saturation: Master: Hue 0 (unchanged), Saturation +38
Vignetting (at f/11): Filter > Lens Correction > Custom > Vignette: +30 (lighten) Midpoint + 19

This may sound like a lot of correction, but it could be set up as an action in Photoshop, and it was only really necessary with my test pictures of the brick wall.  With normal pictures, a minor colour correction would produce an image that was a good colour match to images from the 23mm Fuji lens.

There is a total absence of chromatic aberrations with both lenses, and both of them produce images that have a similar degree of sharpness, with further sharpening not normally necessary.

The key fact is that the 17mm Laowa lens has an angle of view that is much, much wider than the 23mm Fujinon lens, and it corresponds more closely to the way I see scenes in landscapes and cityscapes.

Comparisons with so-called 35mm “full format” (36mm × 24mm) is complicated by the fact that the ratios of “35mm” and Fuji GFX images are different (3:2 vs 4:3).  In fact, if we reduce the height of the GFX image to achieve a 3:2 ratio, (approximately 44mm × 29mm), a large amount of the vignetting with the Laowa 17mm image disappears.

However, the angle of view for the 17mm Laowa is given as 113º, while the angle of view for the 23mm Fujinon is given as 99.9º.  This places the Laowa just slightly wider than the Voigtländer 15mm Super Wide Heliar (110º) on 36×24 format, and slightly narrower than the Voigtländer 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar (121º) on the same format.

The 99.9º of the 23mm Fujinon is significantly narrower than the 15mm Super Wide Heliar.

Both Laowa and Fuji give “full frame equivalent” focal lengths, though these are slightly complicated by the difference in format ratios.

Laowa states that its 17mm GF lens is equivalent to 13.5mm in full frame format, while Fuji states that its 23mm GF lens is equivalent to 18mm in full frame format.  This is of course extremely wide, compared with the wide angle lenses that were available in the film era, when 20mm was generally the widest, and it was not available in all mounts.

Which lens is “better”?  Technically, the Fujinon, but only the Laowa can give those ultra-wide vistas for landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes, and its technical deficiencies are easily corrected in post-production.  No amount of post-production can give a wider image than that which is given by the 23mm Fujinon (and stitching images taken with wide-angle lenses is extremely difficult without specialist software), so for me, for certain shots, the 17mm Laowa will be the lens of choice.

Since the above posting, I have taken a series of pictures of rooms in my home (we have been in lockdown!), using both the 23mm Fuji lens and the 17mm Laowa lens.  Both delivered excellent results, but I really got the best shots with the Laowa lens, as the angle of view is so much wider.  I will now definitely use the Laowa lens without any reservations or concerns, both for interiors and for outdoor shots (when they become possible, again!)

Trevor (back in lockdown after a short relaxation by the government)

Review of Laowa 17mm & Fuji 23mm GF lenses

First, the Fuji 23mm f/4 GF lens for the GFX cameras is excellent in all respects.  There is very slight vignetting at maximum aperture, but that is to be expected with such a wide-angle lens.

The 17mm Laowa lens is not in the same league.  No EXIF data on aperture transmitted to the camera, and there is significant vignetting at f/4 and f/5.6, with some vignetting even at f/11 – visible in test pictures of a brick wall, but not obvious in normal photography.  The resolution is good throughout and there is no linear distortion (e.g., barrel or pin-cushion), which is extremely important.

Contrast and saturation are lower with the Laowa 17mm lens than with the Fuji 23mm lens, but these can easily be corrected in Photoshop.

With my test pictures of the brick wall, I found that the following Photoshop settings produced an image from the 17mm Laowa lens with characteristics that were very similar to those of the Fuji 23mm GF lens.
Brightness & Contrast: Brightness: (unchanged) Contrast + 13
Colour balance: Midtones: +10 (more red, less cyan), 0 (Magenta/Green unchanged), -12 (more yellow, less blue)
Hue/Saturation: Master: Hue 0 (unchanged), Saturation +38
Vignetting (at f/11): Filter > Lens Correction > Custom > Vignette: +30 (lighten) Midpoint + 19

This may sound like a lot of correction, but it could be set up as an action in Photoshop, and it was only really necessary with my test pictures of the brick wall.  With normal pictures, a minor colour correction would produce an image that was a good colour match to images from the 23mm Fuji lens.

There is a total absence of chromatic aberrations with both lenses, and both of them produce images that have a similar degree of sharpness, with further sharpening not normally necessary.

The key fact is that the 17mm Laowa lens has an angle of view that is much, much wider than the 23mm Fujinon lens, and it corresponds more closely to the way I see scenes in landscapes and cityscapes.

Comparisons with so-called 35mm “full format” (36mm × 24mm) is complicated by the fact that the ratios of “35mm” and Fuji GFX images are different (3:2 vs 4:3).  In fact, if we reduce the height of the GFX image to achieve a 3:2 ratio, (approximately 44mm × 29mm), a large amount of the vignetting with the Laowa 17mm image disappears.

However, the angle of view for the 17mm Laowa is given as 113º, while the angle of view for the 23mm Fujinon is given as 99.9º.  This places the Laowa just slightly wider than the Voigtländer 15mm Super Wide Heliar (110º) on 36×24 format, and slightly narrower than the Voigtländer 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar (121º) on the same format.

The 99.9º of the 23mm Fujinon is significantly narrower than the 15mm Super Wide Heliar.

Both Laowa and Fuji give “full frame equivalent” focal lengths, though these are slightly complicated by the difference in format ratios.

Laowa states that its 17mm GF lens is equivalent to 13.5mm in full frame format, while Fuji states that its 23mm GF lens is equivalent to 18mm in full frame format.  This is of course extremely wide, compared with the wide angle lenses that were available in the film era, when 20mm was generally the widest, and it was not available in all mounts.

Which lens is “better”?  Technically, the Fujinon, but only the Laowa can give those ultra-wide vistas for landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes, and its technical deficiencies are easily corrected in post-production.  No amount of post-production can give a wider image than that which is given by the 23mm Fujinon (and stitching images taken with wide-angle lenses is extremely difficult without specialist software), so for me, for certain shots, the 17mm Laowa will be the lens of choice.