Laowa 17mm f4 vs Sigma 12-24mm f4 on Fuji GFX 100

[kristian1]

Hello to all,

As promised I made comparison with those two lenses for sharpness at infinity how most of landscape images are done.

Here is full frame of both lenses (I uploaded full size image)

I used Techart pro adapter , please note that focal length on Sigma is not reported correctly.

View attachment 15781d6e05634d128b1e39e5478a199d.jpg
sigma 12-24

View attachment e2d71116b51040f4b9c570c3c25a5860.jpg
Laowa 17mm f4

Those are crops at 400%


center


right side


right edge


left side


left edge

As you can see SIgma is sharper all over the frame (only center is similar) Also Sigma appears wider at 17mm than Laowa.

In my opinion Laowa is not worth it , unless I got really bad sample.

Focusing was done very carefully , tried all different focus spots and this is best possible shot I could get. At f8 it was even worse , and at f16 diffraction softened image more then image at f11.

One more finding is that SIgma 12-24 is sharp to around 18-20mm after that lens is softer on Fuji and I wouldn't use the lens after 20mm , it can be great companiot with FUji 23mm f4.

This is how wide you can go with SIgma (with some cropping) , you can see how wider it is then Laowa 17mm. , it is a bit less then 15mm and it is little wider then sigma at 12mm on full frame body (Canon 5dsr) which is big bonus. Also image on Fuji with Sigma is sharper then Sigma on Canom 5dsr (Not only because of mp advantage , looks like lens is sharper at edges at 15mm then at 12mm so this is one more bonus)

Lens is sharp even at edges at this focal length which is surprising for me.

View attachment 977ad24462aa4301b0064daebc9324c3.jpg

I am sorry for my english.

Hope this test can help someone who looks to go wider than 23mm.

All the best wishes

Kristian

--
https://www.kristiansekulic.com
https://www.instagram.com/kristiansekulic

 

[AZ Steve]

Thank you for posting this and no need to apologize for your English, which is fine. There was good reason to be suspicious of the performance of the Laowa, which appears to be their 12mm full-frame lens with an extender of some five elements appended to the rear, a strange if economical way to scale the 12mm up to 17mm. It is interesting that this kludge (very colloquial English) works as well as it does.

 

[buggz]

GREAT information!

Thank you!

 

[kristian1]

Thank you for posting this and no need to apologize for your English, which is fine. There was good reason to be suspicious of the performance of the Laowa, which appears to be their 12mm full-frame lens with an extender of some five elements appended to the rear, a strange if economical way to scale the 12mm up to 17mm. It is interesting that this kludge (very colloquial English) works as well as it does.

Yes this is very lame solution , that doesn't even works very well.

I am almost sure that most ultra wide lenses will cover or al least cover 90% of sensor area and are sharper then this Laowa lens.

Its waste of great sensor with this lens.

 

[buggz]

Thank you for posting this and no need to apologize for your English, which is fine. There was good reason to be suspicious of the performance of the Laowa, which appears to be their 12mm full-frame lens with an extender of some five elements appended to the rear, a strange if economical way to scale the 12mm up to 17mm. It is interesting that this kludge (very colloquial English) works as well as it does.

Yes this is very lame solution , that doesn't even works very well.

I am almost sure that most ultra wide lenses will cover or al least cover 90% of sensor area and are sharper then this Laowa lens.

Its waste of great sensor with this lens.

I don't think so at all.

You are probably thinking as new purchase? The OP seemed to ALREADY have this lens.

As such, it is worth the try, and results are good.

Oh, I am seeing your post as a troll bot, nevermind, I will not banter with you.

 

[catdaddy]

You already did banter with him, unless you consider calling someone you disagree with a troll not to be banter. Looking at the comparison, as well as the composition, of the two lenses, it is apparent that he is right

 

[buggz]

Hah, the joke is on me!

That WAS the OP.

Haha, wow!

 

[Velocity of Sound]

Hi Kristian, thanks for sharing your findings. It is very interesting indeed.

I just wanted to make sure that I got it right: the widest you can go without vignetting is 15mm? And the final image you shared is at 12mm?

The vignetting in the final image is interesting. It actually doesn't look all that bad at the edges - probably not recoverable, but not all that severe, requiring only a small crop. The vignetting at the top and bottom is probably from the lens hood, which I believe is built in? I'm not the type to saw off lens hoods, but I wonder if a modification could be made to the lens that would reduce or remove that vignetting.

 

[kristian1]

Hi Kristian, thanks for sharing your findings. It is very interesting indeed.

I just wanted to make sure that I got it right: the widest you can go without vignetting is 15mm? And the final image you shared is at 12mm?

The vignetting in the final image is interesting. It actually doesn't look all that bad at the edges - probably not recoverable, but not all that severe, requiring only a small crop. The vignetting at the top and bottom is probably from the lens hood, which I believe is built in? I'm not the type to saw off lens hoods, but I wonder if a modification could be made to the lens that would reduce or remove that vignetting.

The last image is taken at 15mm , and this is widest you can go with Sigma on GFX , wider than that you will get only bigger vignette - shade (not usable).

Image taken at 15mm on Fuji GFX is actually wider even horizontally than image taken at 12mm on full frame , so with Sigma it is possible to get as wide as around 11mm on FF , And with better edge sharpness which is great bonus.

As the lens is sharper at 15mm outside of FF then at 12mm at edges inside FF (Hope this doesn’t sound confusing).

The shade is from Lens hood which is not possible to remove.

After all we can have 11-19mm (FF) lens on GFX.

Kristian

 

[Richard Feynman]

Jonas Rask had a fairly positive impression of this lens, and the images in his review are beautiful, though I imagine he can make the images from just about any lens beautiful.

Anyhow, I'm disappointed by your conclusions. I am wondering if Jonas Rask got a better sample. I don't know how often he replies to blog comments, but it would be interested if you posted your conclusions and a link to this thread over there to see his response.

Thanks

 

[Velocity of Sound]

I see, thank you for the clarification. What you wrote makes sense.

Fuji should be releasing a new lens roadmap for us in the coming days to weeks, so we'll see what they have to offer; I'm hoping for an ultra-wide zoom to complement the 32-64mm. Even if they do not, it is good to know that the Sigma works so well, and that we still have options if we would need them.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

As the lens is sharper at 15mm outside of FF then at 12mm at edges inside FF (Hope this doesn’t sound confusing).

The shade is from Lens hood which is not possible to remove.

Actually, it is possible to remove it, and in fact Sigma offers this service on their newest lenses. I am growing impatient waiting for an UWA zoom option for the GFX so this might be something to consider. After seeing your post I am *very* curious about the results with a modified lens (how wide can it go, and more important, how wide with good image quality out to the corners?).

 

[kristian1]

As the lens is sharper at 15mm outside of FF then at 12mm at edges inside FF (Hope this doesn’t sound confusing).

The shade is from Lens hood which is not possible to remove.

Actually, it is possible to remove it, and in fact Sigma offers this service on their newest lenses. I am growing impatient waiting for an UWA zoom option for the GFX so this might be something to consider. After seeing your post I am *very* curious about the results with a modified lens (how wide can it go, and more important, how wide with good image quality out to the corners?).

It could go even wider without hood but then attaching filters wouldn't be possible (I do use filters on Sigma 12-24.

What is interesting is that with sigma 12-24 you can go even wider then when using lens on ff at 12mm (thats around 15mm on GFX) , wider then that hood is making shadow.

Also you get sharper corners when using sigma at 15mm on GFX then using the lens at 12mm on FF.

Kristian

 

[kristian1]

Jonas Rask had a fairly positive impression of this lens, and the images in his review are beautiful, though I imagine he can make the images from just about any lens beautiful.

Anyhow, I'm disappointed by your conclusions. I am wondering if Jonas Rask got a better sample. I don't know how often he replies to blog comments, but it would be interested if you posted your conclusions and a link to this thread over there to see his response.

Thanks

Sorry for late replay I was on safari trip

My test was done on resolution only , there is no connection with what you can do with lens , for sure great images are possible to make, it's all about who is behind the camera.

Thing is that in my opinion it is waste of sensor using low quality lens on such great sensor , you may get similar or better results with quality FF camera / lens combo.

Kristian

 

[Luvwine]

Hello to all,

As promised I made comparison with those two lenses for sharpness at infinity how most of landscape images are done.

Here is full frame of both lenses (I uploaded full size image)

I used Techart pro adapter , please note that focal length on Sigma is not reported correctly.

View attachment 15781d6e05634d128b1e39e5478a199d.jpg
sigma 12-24

View attachment e2d71116b51040f4b9c570c3c25a5860.jpg
Laowa 17mm f4

Those are crops at 400%


center


right side


right edge


left side


left edge

As you can see SIgma is sharper all over the frame (only center is similar) Also Sigma appears wider at 17mm than Laowa.

In my opinion Laowa is not worth it , unless I got really bad sample.

Focusing was done very carefully , tried all different focus spots and this is best possible shot I could get. At f8 it was even worse , and at f16 diffraction softened image more then image at f11.

One more finding is that SIgma 12-24 is sharp to around 18-20mm after that lens is softer on Fuji and I wouldn't use the lens after 20mm , it can be great companiot with FUji 23mm f4.

This is how wide you can go with SIgma (with some cropping) , you can see how wider it is then Laowa 17mm. , it is a bit less then 15mm and it is little wider then sigma at 12mm on full frame body (Canon 5dsr) which is big bonus. Also image on Fuji with Sigma is sharper then Sigma on Canom 5dsr (Not only because of mp advantage , looks like lens is sharper at edges at 15mm then at 12mm so this is one more bonus)

Lens is sharp even at edges at this focal length which is surprising for me.

View attachment 977ad24462aa4301b0064daebc9324c3.jpg

I am sorry for my english.

Hope this test can help someone who looks to go wider than 23mm.

All the best wishes

Kristian

Thanks. I had read this. I suspect one cannot use 100mm filters with the Sigma 12-24 but perhaps I am wrong? In your comparison, the Laowa sure did not come out well, but oddly when reading some user reviews they claim sharpness close to the GF 23. I wonder if there is not a fair amount of copy variation, but that is just an hypothesis. It may well be that Sigma is better. Sigma has certainly been producing some excellent glass though often quite large, e.g. Sigma 35/1.2 for Sony (an amazing lens but huge).

--
Luvwine
Sony A7rIV (x2), Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8, Sigma Art 35/1.2, Voigtlander 40/1.2, Voigtlander 50/1.2, Voigtlander 65/2 apo-lanthar, Zeiss Loxia 85/2.4, Sony GM 85/1.4, Voigtlander 110/2.5 apo lanthar, Leica R 180/2.8 apo, Leica R 280/4 apo, Leica R 1.4x Extender, bags by Thinktank, Ona, and others, Canon IPF 8300

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Actually, it is possible to remove it, and in fact Sigma offers this service on their newest lenses.

I was mistaken, the service actually was introduced with the 14-24/2.8 which came out some time later, so I am going to contact Sigma Japan about the 12-24.

I got the lens this week and tested by putting white paper along the inside of the lens hood and it seems that the corners cover from 14mm (maybe slightly before). It is also sharp at the (visible) corner edge at 12mm on the 50R... looks like FF 10 or 11mm equivalent possible.

 

[Buz]

Personally, I am NOT SURPRISED with your result.

I had the Laowa 17mm (after eagerly waiting over a year for it), and was very disappointed from the first images I took with it. VERY soft in the corners at ALL apertures.

I use my Canon TS-E 17mm which is much sharper than the Laowa for this focal length. And I get tilt shift! Win win... I sold my Laowa after having it only 45 days, couldn't return it and took a loss selling it for a few hundred less. I procrastinated it :-/ .

Get a Canon 17mm TS-e with an adapter, yes it's a lot more expensive, but better lens.

--
Capture the story, capture a vision...

 

[Luvwine]

I wonder if there is some sample variation on the Laowa? I have been pretty happy with mine except for the tendency of the lens to flare when shooting into the sun. The flare can be really frustrating. Still, I find it easy to use (infinity focus for my copy is at the hard stop) and it takes 100mm filters. Have not compared it to any other lens, but I don't hesitate to use it in preference to the Fuji 23/4 if I want wider. I think the Fuji is sharper, but it is close enough to be useful until something better comes along. I have seen (but cannot now find) another comparison where the Canon 17 T/S lost to the Laowa 17 though obviously the Laowa does not shift or tilt. It is relatively distortion free, however, and is less expensive, native mount, and takes filters more easily. I see Lens Rentals carries it so you might rent first to see if you like it first.

A recent pic with the Laowa:









--
Luvwine
Fuji GFX 100, Laowa 17/4 for GFX, Fuji GF 23/4, Fuji GF 32-64/4, Fuji GF 45-100, Fuji GF 110/2, Fuji GF 100-200/5.6, Fuji GF 250/4, Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8, Voigtlander 40/1.2, bags by Thinktank, Ona, Compagno, Mindshift, and others, Canon IPF 8300

 

[Buz]

Nice image you posted. For pixel peeping in the corners that image is very dark, so I think not the best candidate for that purpose.

It is possible it could be sample error happening here, I just now my Laowa didn't impress me. I took it to Zion NP last year when I had it on my GFX100 and I didn't care for the images in the corners especially the lower left Even at f11. The Canon TS-17 is hard to use filters...agreed, and the Canon TS-E lenses are prone to some fringing that normally would be corrected in Camera on a Canon body, but isn't on a Fuji body. So I am finding myself playing with the purple fringing slider in C1 on my TS-E images.

I guess its buyer beware, maybe there is better copies out there.

It should be noted on X-Mount, I have the Lawoa 9mm f2.8 and that lens for me is just OK. Not too soft, but not very sharp... Just average results. I kept it, because it not worth the effort to sell it IMHO. Its very small and compact as well.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

So I contacted Sigma Japan earlier this month to see if they would offer a hood removal option, or could point the way to some professional after-market service. They replied that only the 14-24 ART was supported for this factory mod, and that they did not support use on a Fuji MF camera (!).

Taking matters into my own hands, it turns out the mod was pretty easy, and turned out much better that I had thought. I cut a long strip of paper 7mm across and wrapped it around the hood ring just where it bulges slightly in diameter using it to draw a line around the lens hood for the cut.





It isn't necessary to cut the hood down to the base, and since the friction felt lining inside the lens cap extends 7mm - keeping this much would allow using the current lens cap with only a slight modification. My testing indicated this was enough to avoid any image intrusion by the hood itself. I then mounted the lens on a metabones EF-E mount adapter with an l-bracket attachment, that let me tripod mount the lens upside down for cutting so that shavings would not fall up into the lens. Added some masking tape to the outside of the lens to keep dust from getting onto the focus and zoom rings. I made a tube of heavy stock paper the inner diameter of the hood, and put that in as a shield against shavings and accidental cuts into the lens. I used a hacksaw and did an initial shallow cut along the line, slowly working down into the material for about an hour before it was cut clear.



I was shocked to see how clean and concentric the hood cut turned out to be (the black marking is just water droplets after rinsing the shavings off):



The shaved hood then fits perfectly into the lens cap, the felt is holding it in, preventing it from sliding out, and now the shaved hood acts like a limiter so the cap can never get overly deep onto the lens:



Only downside is that the lens cap isn't going to take much of a bump to get knocked off the lens, so I later added a velcro strip around the lens to secure it down (added three pieces on the cap to connect to this).



Here it is mounted on the 50R, lens zoomed out to 12mm before I attached the velcro:



Now I haven't had a chance to get out and use this, but just viewing on the back screen the change in coverage before and after the mod is substantial. From 12mm to 13mm the image circle quickly grows (the field of view in the corners even increases as more becomes revealed during this zoom) and it yields complete coverage at > 13.5mm. It might just image cleanly at 13mm if I shave the bits of the inner sleeve that the front element is part of (will test this weekend). This lens is also sharper the wider it gets, so treating it as a GFX class 14mm prime by the looks of it!

--
-CW