Do you view the 4:3 sensor ratio as a positive, a negative, or just a neutral difference vs standard 3:2 sensors? Just curious. Personally I find the 4:3 ratio to better match my printing. I actually default to that ratio on my EOS R, as well as on film (645, 6x8).
Different, not so much better or worse ;-) I prefer it for portrait orientation, but for landscape I'm not so sure, since I often print closer to 16:9 Depends very much on subjects though. I need a wider variety of experience of using the GFX.
This building is pretty challenging to shoot the interior effectively. The aspects are narrow but tall. Even using a superwide lens its hard to get everything in without it looking almost messy. Excellent review though Keith and it was great to see real world examples. Your examples really highlight the challenges of using superwide angle lenses. I own the Irix 11mm f4 for Nikon f mount and this lens is what I'd describe as Ultra Wide. When you can nail it, this lens produces spectacular results and gives an almost unrivaled angle of view. It is however very challenging and I often end up with a lot of " MEH " images 😋
Hello dear Keith ! Firstly : thank you SO MUCH for your patience and full education around photography. It's a pleasure to look at your tutorials and reviews ! Secondly : I'm new to the GFX system and would like to buy either the 17mm F4, or the 20mm F4 shift lenses from Laowa. What would be your advice ? I thought the 20mm would be better because of the large image circle (no vignetting and great image quality on the whole frame), plus I've got the possibility to shift a bit. Thank you for your time. Colin
Hello Keith, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge about this combination of camera and lens. My questions relate to the Lightroom Optics section. What do you do with the lens profile? The Venus Laowa 17mm lens is not listed as one of the choices. Do you leave the section blank? or Do you choose another lens as a "close approximation"? I am curious what works for you?
Thanks Ah, Lightroom... wouldn't give it space on my hard disk I'm afraid ;-) Unless someone makes a profile for this lens you are up to picking something similar - it simply won't ever work automatically, since the lens has no electronics to tell the camera there is a lens present, yet alone identify it.
Indeed, there is quite possibly some re-use of design elements. That doesn't detract from it being a quite good lens on the GFX ;-) My main 'issue' is the 5 blade aperture - I prefer the 14 blade options from laowa - the 5 poit stars are nice, but I don't always want them
So you're interested in this Laowa 17mm because it's significantly sharper than the Canon 17mm TS-E in the corners? Otherwise, you'd just use the Canon?
'Significant' is not a word I'd use - noticeable perhaps ;-) One reason I rarely compare lenses is that I'm only comparing two physical examples - in this case one nearly new and one I've used thousands of time since 2007... One other reason I'd pick the TS-E is that the version of the 17mm I tested is a blue ring or five blade aperture. I don't really want 'always on' sunstars. The Canon gives me tilt and shift - that's the real reason I'd use it - even a few mm of shift can be really useful. The Laowa 15mm shift is a far more likely choice if I was looking for super-wide - but the images often need work.
@@KeithCooper I vaguely remember reading years ago that one lens testing site said they try to have more than one lens to test, maybe three, in case one is a bad copy. And with tilt-shifts, there are big moving parts that can loosen or wear, or get bumped out of line, so your point makes sense as why not to A/B test them against each other. I think I've looked at all of the wide angle lenses, 15mm and wider that could possibly be used on the GFX sensor. There is an Irix 15mm, but the image circle isn't likely big enough, as it vignettes fairly heavily wide open on a 35mm. Most of the others have fixed petal shaped lens hoods, which can be cut off. But so few are using them that I haven't seen any reports on success. I have the Nikon 14mm f/2.8, which I've used to shoot the northern lights on the 5DsR with an adapter. I'd like to do the same on the 100S, with or without it covering the entire sensor, but the petal shaped fixed lens hood has to be cut off, so I haven't heard of anyone's results with it on a GFX camera. It's expensive too. The Laowa 15mm looks like a lot of fun on the GFX, being about 12 mm wide there. Your solution in using Sharpen AI to fix the smearing at the edges is brilliant, but I just struggle trying to figure out layers and masks in Photoshop, so I've avoided them. The only way I could do it is if someone showed me step by step. To some people, learning software is easy, not for me. Maybe Sharpen AI or another program could fix this smearing without adversely affecting the rest of the image someday, making it simple.
Correction to the above: I just found a review of the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 at Ken Rockwell. The vignetting is more than I thought on full frame, so it's unlikely to cover the entire GFX sensor. The *Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART* might be the best candidate of a 14mm that could cover the whole GFX sensor, since its vignetting at f/2.8 on full frame is only about 1 f/stop (it's 2.5 stops at f/1.8). But again, the 2:3 petal shaped, fixed lens hood has to be cut off. I haven't seen any reports on it being tried. This could be the best wide angle lens on the GFX for astro, and could be plenty sharp for architecture or landscape even in the edges when stopped down to 5.6 or f/8. It's $1600 US. This would be about 11mm on a GFX 100S.
@@jefffenske1958 See the masking and sharpen ai note in the main [written] 15mm review www.northlight-images.co.uk/review-laowa-15mm-f4_5-shift-lens/ I can't really do many step by step guides, since to be sufficiently detailed for people who want step by step guides, they need to be specific to a particular editing setup. I'm afraid I always concentrate more on the overview and the why than the exact how
@@KeithCooper Sharpen AI does a great job when used with your method, your example definitely shows, but many, if not most photographers wouldn't know how to use masks this way. Even the way Photoshop layers are named is confusing. What's the "background layer," for example. It's as if they designed it to NOT be user friendly; though, for some, it seems very easy. My favorite editing program was NIK software, using simple U-Point technology, when NIK still owned and supported it. They had very helpful webinars and support over the phone. Google bought them for the iPhone program only, and let the main software die. Google sold NIK to DxO, which hopefully is a step forward, but the momentum the original company's creators had was amazing, always improving and innovating. With U-Point, it would be so easy to select that area and apply the exact amount of sharpening.
The picture at 32:00 is magnificent. Many thanks for sharing your time and insights.
Thanks - Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks a lot. Specially I appreciate that you show examples of your work in the field. Awesome. Take care. Göran from Latvia
Thanks!
40 minutes of quality information and education.
Thanks - glad it was of interest!
Excellent class Prof. Cooper, I thoroughly enjoyed your insight. I'm glad the GFX 100s is working so well for you.
Thanks!
Do you view the 4:3 sensor ratio as a positive, a negative, or just a neutral difference vs standard 3:2 sensors? Just curious.
Personally I find the 4:3 ratio to better match my printing. I actually default to that ratio on my EOS R, as well as on film (645, 6x8).
Different, not so much better or worse ;-)
I prefer it for portrait orientation, but for landscape I'm not so sure, since I often print closer to 16:9
Depends very much on subjects though. I need a wider variety of experience of using the GFX.
This building is pretty challenging to shoot the interior effectively. The aspects are narrow but tall. Even using a superwide lens its hard to get everything in without it looking almost messy. Excellent review though Keith and it was great to see real world examples. Your examples really highlight the challenges of using superwide angle lenses. I own the Irix 11mm f4 for Nikon f mount and this lens is what I'd describe as Ultra Wide. When you can nail it, this lens produces spectacular results and gives an almost unrivaled angle of view. It is however very challenging and I often end up with a lot of " MEH " images 😋
Yes, wide and with no shift ... finding shots which work well is always the challenge.
Hello dear Keith !
Firstly : thank you SO MUCH for your patience and full education around photography.
It's a pleasure to look at your tutorials and reviews !
Secondly : I'm new to the GFX system and would like to buy either the 17mm F4, or the 20mm F4 shift lenses from Laowa.
What would be your advice ? I thought the 20mm would be better because of the large image circle (no vignetting and great image quality on the whole frame), plus I've got the possibility to shift a bit.
Thank you for your time.
Colin
Thanks - glad it's of interest.
I'd pick the 20 - it's good and wide on the GFX and I always miss shift on wide lenses which don't have it ;-)
Very interesting. I would like to see you as you walk around and hear your thoughts about shots as you go.
Thanks, but that requires filming, audio and support I don't have at the moment
Hello Keith, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge about this combination of camera and lens. My questions relate to the Lightroom Optics section. What do you do with the lens profile? The Venus Laowa 17mm lens is not listed as one of the choices. Do you leave the section blank? or Do you choose another lens as a "close approximation"? I am curious what works for you?
Thanks
Ah, Lightroom... wouldn't give it space on my hard disk I'm afraid ;-)
Unless someone makes a profile for this lens you are up to picking something similar - it simply won't ever work automatically, since the lens has no electronics to tell the camera there is a lens present, yet alone identify it.
Another thorough review Thank you Keith
Thanks!
Good information and video Keith
Thanks!
I hear it's a 12 mm f 2 for 35mm coverage without the back elements.
Indeed, there is quite possibly some re-use of design elements. That doesn't detract from it being a quite good lens on the GFX ;-)
My main 'issue' is the 5 blade aperture - I prefer the 14 blade options from laowa - the 5 poit stars are nice, but I don't always want them
8:15mm absolutely the last 5 lens elements but especially the Triplet Element in the back with 2 Barlow lenses = "Teleconverter "
Yes, it's a long lens for the focal length ;-)
@@KeithCooper Also, how does the native color compare to your Fuji zoom ?
Not in any significant way that I can see.
However that's not an aspect of lenses I usually test in any detail.
it's in fact the 12mm + magic format converter... sold as a lens !
Yes - Optically it looks this way, I didn't want to say so directly since it's not in the specifications.
I already have the 12mm Laowa cine lens in EF. Is it just worth me buying the adapter instead of this lens then?
@@greenjeenzz for architecture the 20mm shift makes more sense
@@theshortlist a new client I have wants interior design shots, rooms vary in size. Scratching my head at what to go with. 20mm shift still?
@@greenjeenzz Fuji GF 20/35 zoom... but expensive.. or you can use your 12mm in 35mm crop mode !
So you're interested in this Laowa 17mm because it's significantly sharper than the Canon 17mm TS-E in the corners? Otherwise, you'd just use the Canon?
'Significant' is not a word I'd use - noticeable perhaps ;-)
One reason I rarely compare lenses is that I'm only comparing two physical examples - in this case one nearly new and one I've used thousands of time since 2007...
One other reason I'd pick the TS-E is that the version of the 17mm I tested is a blue ring or five blade aperture. I don't really want 'always on' sunstars.
The Canon gives me tilt and shift - that's the real reason I'd use it - even a few mm of shift can be really useful. The Laowa 15mm shift is a far more likely choice if I was looking for super-wide - but the images often need work.
@@KeithCooper I vaguely remember reading years ago that one lens testing site said they try to have more than one lens to test, maybe three, in case one is a bad copy. And with tilt-shifts, there are big moving parts that can loosen or wear, or get bumped out of line, so your point makes sense as why not to A/B test them against each other.
I think I've looked at all of the wide angle lenses, 15mm and wider that could possibly be used on the GFX sensor. There is an Irix 15mm, but the image circle isn't likely big enough, as it vignettes fairly heavily wide open on a 35mm.
Most of the others have fixed petal shaped lens hoods, which can be cut off. But so few are using them that I haven't seen any reports on success.
I have the Nikon 14mm f/2.8, which I've used to shoot the northern lights on the 5DsR with an adapter. I'd like to do the same on the 100S, with or without it covering the entire sensor, but the petal shaped fixed lens hood has to be cut off, so I haven't heard of anyone's results with it on a GFX camera. It's expensive too.
The Laowa 15mm looks like a lot of fun on the GFX, being about 12 mm wide there. Your solution in using Sharpen AI to fix the smearing at the edges is brilliant, but I just struggle trying to figure out layers and masks in Photoshop, so I've avoided them.
The only way I could do it is if someone showed me step by step. To some people, learning software is easy, not for me.
Maybe Sharpen AI or another program could fix this smearing without adversely affecting the rest of the image someday, making it simple.
Correction to the above: I just found a review of the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 at Ken Rockwell. The vignetting is more than I thought on full frame, so it's unlikely to cover the entire GFX sensor.
The *Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART* might be the best candidate of a 14mm that could cover the whole GFX sensor, since its vignetting at f/2.8 on full frame is only about 1 f/stop (it's 2.5 stops at f/1.8). But again, the 2:3 petal shaped, fixed lens hood has to be cut off. I haven't seen any reports on it being tried. This could be the best wide angle lens on the GFX for astro, and could be plenty sharp for architecture or landscape even in the edges when stopped down to 5.6 or f/8. It's $1600 US. This would be about 11mm on a GFX 100S.
@@jefffenske1958 See the masking and sharpen ai note in the main [written] 15mm review
www.northlight-images.co.uk/review-laowa-15mm-f4_5-shift-lens/
I can't really do many step by step guides, since to be sufficiently detailed for people who want step by step guides, they need to be specific to a particular editing setup.
I'm afraid I always concentrate more on the overview and the why than the exact how
@@KeithCooper Sharpen AI does a great job when used with your method, your example definitely shows, but many, if not most photographers wouldn't know how to use masks this way. Even the way Photoshop layers are named is confusing. What's the "background layer," for example. It's as if they designed it to NOT be user friendly; though, for some, it seems very easy.
My favorite editing program was NIK software, using simple U-Point technology, when NIK still owned and supported it. They had very helpful webinars and support over the phone. Google bought them for the iPhone program only, and let the main software die.
Google sold NIK to DxO, which hopefully is a step forward, but the momentum the original company's creators had was amazing, always improving and innovating.
With U-Point, it would be so easy to select that area and apply the exact amount of sharpening.