Jump to content

Laowa 17mm f4 Zero-D in GFX mount


f2bthere
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Posts

    • When considering the 55-200 also have a look at the 70-300. There's not much difference between f4.8 and f5.6 at the long end and the 70-300 is certainly a faster focusing lens. I'd buy the 55-200 only when it is a great second-hand deal. There's only €100 difference between the two lenses when purchased new. In that case I'd go for the 70-300, but that's just me... 😉 Best Fujifilm Telephoto Zoom Lens 2021 | Photography Blog
    • Thank you! This is great news. Fujinon XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS has got nice price, and its aperture in the range of 55-80mm is a little faster than on Fujinon XF 16-80mm f4 R OIS WR that I own, but at 200mm it's f4.8 which I can't tell is usable. I bought 16-80 for indoor sports but also for general purposes like landscape and architecture to complement my 35mm f1.4. For indoor sports, I used it in the range of 50-80mm so far, and I needed some more zoom, but I also know that at some other gyms that I've been before even the 35mm was fine when I could place myself near the court. Not sure if 55-200 is ideal solution for sports either, but it's much cheaper and lighter than 50-140. Heck I think even f2.8 is too small aperture for indoor sports. If I don't go for 50-140, I would most likely go for 55-200.
    • The push function on the rear-dials of the 'earlier' X cameras is quite prone to defects. I believe it was solved in the X-H1 and the X-T3 thereafter, but X-E3's have the earlier internal design. The push function could 'stick' in one function or between functions causing the rotate function not to work properly. If that happens, internal cleaning or replacing is the only option. Something that (most of) you can't do yourself.
    • Hi Milos, welcome. I'm too a Leica M user (M7 and M10-R) but I also use the X-Pro2. First, about the firmware updates. You can update straight to v5. Every firmware update contains the full firmware and not just the changed bits. As for the lens, Fuji has two zoom lenses that might work, but they are both a bit slower in terms of aperture. It's the 55-200 and the 70-300. Both have IOS (the X-Pro2 has not) so that is a benefit. Yet, I believe the 50-140 is the better choice for indoor sports even though the X-Pro2 isn't exactly fast in AF. Another option might be the long prime lenses. There are two in this category (I won't mention the 200mm): the 80mm macro is very sharp (allows for cropping) and has OIS but is is almost as expensive as the 50-140 and is not easily available as second-hand. The 90mm tele is one of Fuji's best lenses for portraits, is less expensive than the 80mm, but lacks OIS. It focuses very fast though. I loved that lens, but you need to learn to work with it esp. on an X-Pro2. The 50mm f2 is a very nice lens by the way and if the focal length works for you, you can crop by up to 30% (approx. 14-16MP) before quality becomes an issue.  The OVF of the X-Pro line doesn't work well with lenses longer than 50mm and the EVF of the X-Pro1 and 2 is a TFT-type that doesn't work well in low light and fast action (indoor sports). It has a poor refresh rate and in 'smears' a bit when you move the camera fast. You can however, learn to work with it even though it's not ideal. As for third-party lenses, I'm not aware of a fast 'long zoom' for X-mount. Tamron announced some lenses for X-mount (so did Sigma) but not in this category as far as I know. Their variable zoom lenses very quickly go to f4.5 or f5.6 once you zoom in. Viltrox and others focus on shorter primes for X-mount.
×
×
  • Create New...