Not a "cheap" lens, but certainly less expensive than the Nikon F-mount options. No electronics, so it should be
bricking" and patent proof.
Interesting features, like the Arca-Swiss style foot, and 17mm, but still takes front mounted filters. That is wider and more filter friendly than Nikon's 19mm PC-E.
It's also interesting that you can get a shift-only version for a slightly lower price.
It will be interesting to see how the optics stack up to the Nikon PC-Es, which are excellent.
I have Zero-D Shift 15mm and it's on par with Canon TS-E 17mm but wider.
See no need in 17 though. Maybe I will be getting 20mm Zero-D (wish they put here 5-blade apeture for 10-end sunstars to compliment 15mm)
Tripod mount is a great addition (for 15 and 20 Laowa had a rotating frame), but for Tilt I cannot see use on such wide-angle except rarely needed pseudo-macro on such wide lens.
And shift-only version ergonomically much more convenient (it has rotating ring to shift also present in Hartblei Super-Rotators) than canon-style with knobs (never liked it on 17 TS-E or 24 TS-E which I own).
So, one to rule them all 17 will be great (with someone make modern 28 or 35 - I had 35mm shift Rokkor from 1970s and it s not super sharp by modern standards), but 15+20 (or 24 - if you have Canon TS-E) will be more practical.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
A 24mm f/2.0 tilt-shift lens is seemingly coming from Laowa as well: one of the reviewers of the 17mm has accidentally spoiled it.
I already have a Nikon 24mm PC-E, and see no need to replace it. Since I need an adapter to use it on my Z cameras, I use the original FTZ with a Kirk L-bracket, which takes care of the need for an Arch-Swiss tripod mount, and also better balances the combined weight of the camera and lens.
Whether you need, or want, the tilt function on ultra wide angle lens, would seem to be largely a function of what you like and intend to shoot. It's nice that Laowa gives you the option to save a little monty if you don't want it,
A 17mm shift lens is pretty extreme and often not that useful imo. When shifted it will behave like a 9mm lens so everything towards the edges will be extremely stretched and look unnatural - it's just how rectilinear projection works..
A 24mm or 20mm shift lens for mirrorless would be great!
fjablo wrote:
A 17mm shift lens is pretty extreme and often not that useful imo. When shifted it will behave like a 9mm lens so everything towards the edges will be extremely stretched and look unnatural - it's just how rectilinear projection works..
A 24mm or 20mm shift lens for mirrorless would be great!
I think you are making an assumption on the distortion. My experience with the Nikkor PC-Es, including the 19mm, was that distortion was not an issue. T/S lenses are not the same a UWA lenses.
mklass wrote:
I think you are making an assumption on the distortion. My experience with the Nikkor PC-Es, including the 19mm, was that distortion was not an issue. T/S lenses are not the same a UWA lenses.
It's not that distortion, it's a protruded and exaggerated perspective, especially for objects placed of central vertical axis (for lens raising up)
Compare here (I shot second shot just stepping a meter to the right and rotating lens shift direction a little bit left, w/o it tou can see round balcony became too distorted ellipse) _QWZ2186 by Nikolai Vassiliev, on Flickr
And such effect is always more visible with wider angle (here it's Laowa 15mm Shift)
You can also see how balcony bottom surface became more and more 'open' - i.e. widens-up for topmost balcony.
Such effect cannot be mitigated by shifting, just by extending distance between lens and the object.
q-w-z wrote:
It's not that distortion, it's a protruded and exaggerated perspective, especially for objects placed of central vertical axis (for lens raising up)
And such effect is always more visible with wider angle (here it's Laowa 15mm Shift)
You can also see how balcony bottom surface became more and more 'open' - i.e. widens-up for topmost balcony.
Such effect cannot be mitigated by shifting, just by extending distance between lens and the object....Show more →
Well, that is a different lens with a different focal length. It looks to be constructed differently than the 17mm, particularly with the bulbous front element.
In addition, you changed position between shots, rather than just shifted the lens, so I would expect different results.
Let's see some results for actual use of the 17mm.
No, no and no.
I've changed position exactly beacuse upper balconies became distorted.
15mm vs 17mm would have a little more pronounced effect but it present with 24mm too and you should be 'trained' to see it with 35mm+
And it still there with any wide-angle, shifting just made it assymetrical and more visible (you can say 17mm shift will be more or less equivalent of cropped 12mm).
Look here, it's a Canon TS-E 17mm, how similar building details got distorted despite verticals still maintain verticality (basically the thing you need in architecture pictures) https://www.flickr.com/photos/qwz/shares/010A8sQ213
mklass wrote:
I think you are making an assumption on the distortion. My experience with the Nikkor PC-Es, including the 19mm, was that distortion was not an issue. T/S lenses are not the same a UWA lenses.
No, not an assumption.
I think you're confusing optical distortion (barrel/pincushion) with rectilinear volume deformation. The physics of mapping such a massive image circle onto a flat plane dictate that 3D objects at the extreme edges will stretch. It's not a lens flaw, it's just the unavoidable geometry of extreme ultra-wide rectilinear projection.
The image circle of T/S lenses is way bigger than FF, they are effectively more extreme UWA lenses for medium format sensors. If you shift the lens up, for example, that's like taking a picture on that medium format sensor but cropping so you only keep the upper 36x24mm. But that means you are more on the edge of UWA projection and that means things will get stretched.
Volume deformation is also not the same as perspective distortion btw - it will happen regardless of distance to subject.
mklass wrote:
I already have a Nikon 24mm PC-E, and see no need to replace it. Since I need an adapter to use it on my Z cameras, I use the original FTZ with a Kirk L-bracket, which takes care of the need for an Arch-Swiss tripod mount, and also better balances the combined weight of the camera and lens.
Whether you need, or want, the tilt function on ultra wide angle lens, would seem to be largely a function of what you like and intend to shoot. It's nice that Laowa gives you the option to save a little monty if you don't want it,...Show more →
Well, personally, I'm not looking for any tilt-shift lenses, but it's always nice to have options, and if I have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion somehow, I do it. If that 24mm f/2.0 is real, it will also represent an almost 2 stop increase of max. aperture, although I'm fully aware that T/S lenses are mostly used stopped down, way down.
The Canon 17TSE has low distortion, though I was not so happy with the shifted performance. how does the Laowa perform shifted, especially the MTF and CA?
If that 24mm f/2.0 is real, it will also represent an almost 2 stop increase of max. aperture, although I'm fully aware that T/S lenses are mostly used stopped down, way down.