Canon 11-22mm vs Laowa 9mm F2.8. Can't Decide.

I've had the 11-22 for couple years and was very happy.

Recently that lens went bad, and I was in the market for a replacement.

Around same time I saw few threads regarding the Laowa 9mm as well the Rokinon 12mm.

I have tried the Rokinon since it is 2 stops faster, but decided that the 11-22 IQ is so much better, and is the better decision.

Now, I can't stop thinking about the Laowa, especially with sale discount, But can't see how it makes sense?

It has mainly 2 advantages:\

1. 1 stop faster.

2. Another 1.5mm (All 11-22 I've tried to goes extra 0.5mm)

When thinking of each 1 of the advantages in order to get to a decision:

1. The extra 1 stop is nice advantage, but not huge.

Especially when I see that for best sharpness which I care A LOT, it's has to be stopped down...

Also, for good Architecture and Scenery which is 75% of my need of UW, you also need to stop down for DOF.

On the other hand, with the 11-22 I'm getting around 3 stops, 2 more than Laowa, due to stabilization, for anything that not includes moving subject. Again. most of my shots with UWA.

Add to that the Auto focus, which IS important especially in the cases the Laowa has advantage such with fast moving subjects, and it looks like the 11-22 is a winner.

2. The extra 1.5mm, in all the UWA I've ever took, and even in many of the photos in previous threads praising the Laowa, I've almost never saw a common case (which will be important enough to carry that lens and switching to it), where that 1.5mm made the difference.

For sure there are cases, but in my experience usually either 10.5 is enough, or 9mm is also not enough.

On the other hand, going with that instead of 11-22, is a sure recipe to lose many photo opportunities where the need to switch back and forth bet. 9mm and 22 or 32mm, will make you lose.

Add to that that for that 1.5mm you sacrificing Zoom, DLO + EXIF info, Better sharpness at max aperture, and usually you pay more for that, (even now, you can get the 11-22mm with 15% off loyalty with Canon), and to my eyes that leaves the 9mm a good decision only for Astrophotography, or specialty such as Real estate where you do need that extra 1.5mm or 1 stop and not appreciate all of the reasoning above.

Am I wrong? It is still a difficult choice for me.

ezriel wrote:

I've had the 11-22 for couple years and was very happy.

Recently that lens went bad, and I was in the market for a replacement.

Around same time I saw few threads regarding the Laowa 9mm as well the Rokinon 12mm.

I have tried the Rokinon since it is 2 stops faster, but decided that the 11-22 IQ is so much better, and is the better decision.

Now, I can't stop thinking about the Laowa, especially with sale discount, But can't see how it makes sense?

It has mainly 2 advantages:\

1. 1 stop faster.

2. Another 1.5mm (All 11-22 I've tried to goes extra 0.5mm)

When thinking of each 1 of the advantages in order to get to a decision:

1. The extra 1 stop is nice advantage, but not huge.

Especially when I see that for best sharpness which I care A LOT, it's has to be stopped down...

Also, for good Architecture and Scenery which is 75% of my need of UW, you also need to stop down for DOF.

On the other hand, with the 11-22 I'm getting around 3 stops, 2 more than Laowa, due to stabilization, for anything that not includes moving subject. Again. most of my shots with UWA.

Add to that the Auto focus, which IS important especially in the cases the Laowa has advantage such with fast moving subjects, and it looks like the 11-22 is a winner.

2. The extra 1.5mm, in all the UWA I've ever took, and even in many of the photos in previous threads praising the Laowa, I've almost never saw a common case (which will be important enough to carry that lens and switching to it), where that 1.5mm made the difference.

For sure there are cases, but in my experience usually either 10.5 is enough, or 9mm is also not enough.

On the other hand, going with that instead of 11-22, is a sure recipe to lose many photo opportunities where the need to switch back and forth bet. 9mm and 22 or 32mm, will make you lose.

Add to that that for that 1.5mm you sacrificing Zoom, DLO + EXIF info, Better sharpness at max aperture, and usually you pay more for that, (even now, you can get the 11-22mm with 15% off loyalty with Canon), and to my eyes that leaves the 9mm a good decision only for Astrophotography, or specialty such as Real estate where you do need that extra 1.5mm or 1 stop and not appreciate all of the reasoning above.

Am I wrong? It is still a difficult choice for me.

Too many choices is a good problem to have!

If it was me and I could only choose 1 ultra-wide the choice is easy... The Canon 11-22 is useful in many more circumstances, especially because of its AF.  It zooms in enough to be a good walkaround lens too.

For me the Roki or Laowa would be (were, actually) specialty lenses above and beyond normal use case.

Laowa is great if you really love as wide as possible for special landscape or architecture.  The edge distortion is that much more noticeable than 11mm or 12mm so it's not a lens you would shoot with all the time unless you always shoot those things.

Roki is really for those who need sharp low light shooting like astro. It also is less of a general purpose lens.

Larry Rexley wrote:

ezriel wrote:

I've had the 11-22 for couple years and was very happy.

Recently that lens went bad, and I was in the market for a replacement.

Around same time I saw few threads regarding the Laowa 9mm as well the Rokinon 12mm.

I have tried the Rokinon since it is 2 stops faster, but decided that the 11-22 IQ is so much better, and is the better decision.

Now, I can't stop thinking about the Laowa, especially with sale discount, But can't see how it makes sense?

It has mainly 2 advantages:\

1. 1 stop faster.

2. Another 1.5mm (All 11-22 I've tried to goes extra 0.5mm)

When thinking of each 1 of the advantages in order to get to a decision:

1. The extra 1 stop is nice advantage, but not huge.

Especially when I see that for best sharpness which I care A LOT, it's has to be stopped down...

Also, for good Architecture and Scenery which is 75% of my need of UW, you also need to stop down for DOF.

On the other hand, with the 11-22 I'm getting around 3 stops, 2 more than Laowa, due to stabilization, for anything that not includes moving subject. Again. most of my shots with UWA.

Add to that the Auto focus, which IS important especially in the cases the Laowa has advantage such with fast moving subjects, and it looks like the 11-22 is a winner.

2. The extra 1.5mm, in all the UWA I've ever took, and even in many of the photos in previous threads praising the Laowa, I've almost never saw a common case (which will be important enough to carry that lens and switching to it), where that 1.5mm made the difference.

For sure there are cases, but in my experience usually either 10.5 is enough, or 9mm is also not enough.

On the other hand, going with that instead of 11-22, is a sure recipe to lose many photo opportunities where the need to switch back and forth bet. 9mm and 22 or 32mm, will make you lose.

Add to that that for that 1.5mm you sacrificing Zoom, DLO + EXIF info, Better sharpness at max aperture, and usually you pay more for that, (even now, you can get the 11-22mm with 15% off loyalty with Canon), and to my eyes that leaves the 9mm a good decision only for Astrophotography, or specialty such as Real estate where you do need that extra 1.5mm or 1 stop and not appreciate all of the reasoning above.

Am I wrong? It is still a difficult choice for me.

I feel your pain, having expressed my version of it in another thread.

Too many choices is a good problem to have!

If it was me and I could only choose 1 ultra-wide the choice is easy... The Canon 11-22 is useful in many more circumstances, especially because of its AF. It zooms in enough to be a good walkaround lens too.

Totally agree.  The 11-22 is what lives on my M6 II most of the time because it is so widely useful.

For me the Roki or Laowa would be (were, actually) specialty lenses above and beyond normal use case.

Laowa is great if you really love as wide as possible for special landscape or architecture. The edge distortion is that much more noticeable than 11mm or 12mm so it's not a lens you would shoot with all the time unless you always shoot those things.

Roki is really for those who need sharp low light shooting like astro. It also is less of a general purpose lens.

So in my case, FWIW;

• I couldn’t live without my 11-22.  It does so much so well.
• The Rokinon 8mm f2.8 fisheye that I got a year ago has proven to be an interesting novelty lens, and has produced a few of the only shots I have dared to post here, but in the end it’s a fisheye and thus requires really careful use and/or a lot of de-fishing.
• I just broke down and ordered the Laowa 9mm at its $399 sale price.  Hopefully it will give me some of the UWA capabilities that I have been looking for in a lens that hopefully requires less distortion correction.  But based on some of my previous lens acquisitions, I expect that I will only use it a fraction of the time that I use my go-to lenses such as the 11-22.  Time will tell.

Good luck with your difficult choice.  As Larry said, it’s not a bad thing.

Well I think it maybe time to invest a used copy of 11-22mm locally, but even the new ones for EF-M lens are mostly on sale ; ) used or new.

Or maybe trying the Sigma 16mm EF-M which I have never own but it is f/1.4

There is no absolute right or wrong with any lens choice, only right or wrong for you. You've assessed all the issues, and come up with a decision. Looks like good work to me.
Personally, I love both lenses, and yes, the 8mm Samyang Fisheye as well. I find the Laowa really easy to use, to be honest. It rarely needs focusing - depth of field is pretty huge, especially stopped down to f8. But it's easy with focus peaking. And that extra bit of width is often very useful. But your summary of the strengths of the zoom is spot on, so for you, it looks like the better option.

I own both and if I had to choose between these 2, I would go for the 11-22mm IS!
Why?

1. Cheaper
2. IS
3. AF
4. auto exposure (I messed up a lot of my recent test shots due to over exposure)
5. filter diameter matches that of 18-150 & 56mm Siggy, 1 pol for all.
6. for most cases wide enough

The Exposure metering not working?

if it working correctly why not working in Auto, and if not correct, then even in Manual you can’t trust the meter which is huge disadvantage.

ezriel wrote:

The Exposure metering not working?

if it working correctly why not working in Auto, and if not correct, then even in Manual you can’t trust the meter which is huge disadvantage.

Works absolutely fine for me in any mode.