I tested it in a store yesterday. It's a really tiny lens, even smaller than the Rokinon 12mm, and looks to be of high build quality.Was afraid to plonk down the money though since I already have a good copy of the 12mm and apparently the corners of the Laowa 9mm aren't good at f2.8 unless you stop down a lot.Testing in store though, I don't notice any fall off in sharpness towards the sides. And true enough, I didn't notice any CA! The vignetting didn't really bother me too. But what made me hesitant is that when focusing about 1m away though on a cabinet of lenses, the text on the lens boxes about 1/3 from centre appeared 'shaky', i.e. not in focus. Not sure if this is due to field curvature, copy variation or that I didn't focus it properly.Just wondering if anyone has been daring enough to buy this lens yet?

I have just taken delivery of this lens as I wanted an extreme (non-fisheye) wide angle lens for my Sony A6000.In the very short time I have had it I can confidently say that I am impressed by its tiny size, build quality and sharpness. For the price I believe it is about as good as it gets. Of course it is not a lens for everyone, or for every occasion but from the test shots I have taken I am really looking forward to having fun with this lens and it will certainly be one of my "go to" lens when I am traveling, along with my Zeiss 16-70 zoom.

I'm really looking forward t seeing some pictures from this very interesting lens !

Please post some pictures when you can, I’ve been debating between this lens and the Rokinon 12/2.  Would love to see more image from the Laowa before I decide.

+1By the looks of it, it's even smaller than the 12mm Rok/Samyang? Can anyone provide a side-by-side comparison?Please let's see some samples as this does indeed look interesting!

It's 6 x 5.3cm while Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 is 7.72 x 9.88 cm

We have lots of images on our website. Or you can check the review and sample video on youtube.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Sweet!

MrCPH wrote:Sweet!Here you find some good info

Cool, thanks!Doesn't look ike the sharpest of lenses and the color rendering isn't to my personal preference but the size and the focal length hmmm... Interesting!

MrCPH wrote:Cool, thanks!Doesn't look ike the sharpest of lenses and the color rendering isn't to my personal preference but the size and the focal length hmmm... Interesting!Look at this graphResolution of Laowa 9mmIt is sharper than Rokinon/Samyang 12F2Samyang F12/F2 resolutionBut must admit that samples @lenstip seem a bit blurry.

Tommy S wrote:MrCPH wrote:Cool, thanks!Doesn't look ike the sharpest of lenses and the color rendering isn't to my personal preference but the size and the focal length hmmm... Interesting!Look at this graphResolution of Laowa 9mmIt is sharper than Rokinon/Samyang 12F2Samyang F12/F2 resolutionBut must admit that samples @lenstip seem a bit blurry.Yes, the graph definitely gives a differet impression than the samples, thanks!

No "real world" pics yet?

Boilermaker81 wrote:Please post some pictures when you can, I’ve been debating between this lens and the Rokinon 12/2. Would love to see more image from the Laowa before I decide.This thread is nine months old, but I've looked and can find no similar thread in this forum that's more current, so...Here are some images I've made using the Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8, which I very much enjoy using, by the way.This lens requires manual everything, including the diaghram, and offers no communication with the body (an a6000 in my case), so the file has no metadata that would normally come from the lens.It's really fun to use, relying heavily on post-capture examination with enlargement. Focus peaking is nearly useless, as almost everything in the frame gets highlighted. It would, however, be very useful for focusing at Infinity in the absence of near subjects (i.e. astrophotography, for which I have little interest.)But hyperfocusing is certainly possible so that you can run about, shooting with a "fixed-focus" mentality.Hyperfocusing the Venus Optics Laowa 9mm at f/5.6+1/2 stop for subject spaces ranging from 1.5m (4.9 ft) to Infinity. The focus index, as shown here, is at 3m, though not marked on the distance scale.With a lot of tripod testing in the backyard, using a Stanley laser distance measurer and taking careful notes, I've figured out that as long as you keep the nearest subjects at 1.5m or farther, you can shoot at f/5.6 with the Infinity symbol of the distance scale centered between the red focus index and the leftmost white "2.8" mark.It's subjective, of course, and dependent in part on your final enlargement factor and viewing distance, but at least in terms of DoF, everything will be "acceptably" sharp, with no evidence of diffraction.Stopping down to f/5.6 + 1/2 stop will squeeze out a little more DoF, but at about f/5.6 + 2/3 stops, I begin to see diffraction-induced softening across the entire frame (not just at the Near and Far limits of the subject space.) At f/8, diffraction is readily discerible when pixel-peeping at 100% on a 27-inch 4k NEC EA275UHD monitor viewed at a distance of 24 inches.In short, try using f/5.6 + 1/2 stop and centering the Infinity symbol of the distance scale between the red focus index and the left-most white f/2.8 mark - then keep the nearest subjects at 1.5m (4.9 ft.) or farther.I optimize everything for viewing on 4k screens, so if you have a 4k monitor, I recommend you download the full size JPGs and view them external to the DPreview HTML interface.  For whatever reason, they are a little bit sharper that way - not just for my work, but for everyone's.f/5.6This next shot was also taken at f/5.6, standing about 4 ft. (1.2m) from the tree, with the focusing index on the barrel pointing to the rightmost edge of the Infinity symbol.f/5.6f/5.6As soon as I tilt the lens down a little, permitting the frame to include closer areas of the foreground at my feet, or whenever something protrudes inside that 1.5m Near limit that works fine for fixed-focus shooting, I have to start moving the Index mark away from the Infinity symbol, in tiny increments, inspecting each exposure with the a6000's Enlarge feature, to fine tune the loss of resolution at the Far, while securing acceptable resolution at the closer-than-acceptable Near.Unfortunately, the resolution of the electronic view finder is not as high as the resolution of the sensor (LOL) so, obviously, but I feel compelled to say this, even when I go to 100% magnification in the viewfinder, panning around the image to inspect different areas, the entire image can be "sharper" than the EVF is capable of resolving - which leaves me having to interpolate the Index position that's half-way between two unacceptable Index positions at which the "low-resolution" EVF can actually communicate slight degradations of resolution at the Near or at the Far.Everyone assumes ultra-wide lenses (this one being equivalent to 13.5mm for fullframe) are easy to focus. That's absolutely true when shooting relatively shallow subject spaces that would fit the DoF capability of a longer lens,but once you start trying to squeeze in subject spaces that are proportionately as deep as the lens is short, the ultra-wides are actually much more difficult to focus.Really, the easist solution is to do a lot of "backyard testing" with a tape measure for knowing exactly where your Nears reside in each shot, taking dilligent notes as to what f/Number you used for each frame -AND- precisely where you had positioned the focus index - because you won't find this information in the EXIF data.   Then, and this is very important, examine the results of Near and Far resolution, at center and edges -atyouranticipated final enlargement factor and viewing distance.Then you can just set the camera for Aperture-preferred mode and as long as you don't allow anything to come any closer than your pre-determined minimum distance, everything will be "sharp," all the way out to Infinity, foryoursubjective resolution preference atyouranticipated enalargement factor and viewing distance.

Thank you, Mike.Very good primer on the details of using ultrawides.  I will point others to this post.It is a very fine line, chasing the edge of diffraction while pushing the limits of DOF, and you have described it well.I do this for back country images and you want to have done your homework somewhere pleasant and warm beforehand when the temps are way below freezing and the winds are whipping.Good photons to you.

Thank you for writing this up, appreciate. Can you recommend an ND filter solution? I use Cokin P system on my lenses but I am afraid that approach will not succeed here because of vignetting. Maybe a Hoya ProND ND?

For anyone wanting to optimize the aggressiveness of DoF calculations for this lens, (specifying a maximum permissible CoC diameter of 0.01mm), for the purpose of marginally exceeding the native resolution of a 4K (8.3 MP) monitor or TV (leaving a margin of 20% if there's a need to crop a 16:9 capture), to be viewed at a distance that's equal to 90% of the screen diagonal), here are some files you might find useful, created using tools available at DoFMaster.com.Note that f/8 does NOT yield visible diffraction under the above stated conditions of final image resolution, enlargement factor and viewing distance, even though the diffraction caused by f/8 may be visible on your monitor, at your viewing distance, when pixel-peeping a capture at 100%. (The lower the final image resolution OR the lower the enlargement factor OR the greater the viewing distance OR, yes, the wider the lens aperture, the less visible will be the impact of diffraction.)Print two copies of this file, to a diameter that fits your camera bag, then laminate both of them, then join them at the center with a brass paper fastener.https://www.amazon.com/ACCO-Brass-Paper-Fasteners-Plated/dp/B004LWNHSK/Note: When evaluating images here on DPR, it's best to download the full-size original file, then view it with a Photo viewer or editor, instead of viewing it in your browser, as served by DPR.I have field tested these DoF calculations, extensively - with 4K monitors & TVs being my preferred output (viewed at 90% of the screen diagonal). You can trust them, but to maintain the fastest possible shutter speeds for a given ISO and lighting conditions (rather than stopping down farther than f/8 (risking visible diffraction to allow sloppier field technique), you must be disciplined in measuring the distance from the sensor plane to the Near and Far points of the subject space, and more difficult still, when focusing at the calculated distance.I use a Bosch laser rangefinder, but I cannot trust the EVF's low resolution, even when using the a6000's post-exposure enlarge function, to tell exactly where I have focused the lens. I instead pay attention to the blue dots seen on my DoFMaster disk, so that I can more confidently rotate the focus ring to position the lens' focus index where it needs to be within the non-linear void between two straddling distances that are engraved on the lens barrel.

Mike Davis wrote:Boilermaker81 wrote:Please post some pictures when you can, I’ve been debating between this lens and the Rokinon 12/2. Would love to see more image from the Laowa before I decide.This thread is nine months old, but I've looked and can find no similar thread in this forum that's more current, so...Here are some images I've made using the Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8, which I very much enjoy using, by the way.This lens requires manual everything, including the diaghram, and offers no communication with the body (an a6000 in my case), so the file has no metadata that would normally come from the lens.It's really fun to use, relying heavily on post-capture examination with enlargement. Focus peaking is nearly useless, as almost everything in the frame gets highlighted. It would, however, be very useful for focusing at Infinity in the absence of near subjects (i.e. astrophotography, for which I have little interest.)But hyperfocusing is certainly possible so that you can run about, shooting with a "fixed-focus" mentality.Hyperfocusing the Venus Optics Laowa 9mm at f/5.6+1/2 stop for subject spaces ranging from 1.5m (4.9 ft) to Infinity. The focus index, as shown here, is at 3m, though not marked on the distance scale.With a lot of tripod testing in the backyard, using a Stanley laser distance measurer and taking careful notes, I've figured out that as long as you keep the nearest subjects at 1.5m or farther, you can shoot at f/5.6 with the Infinity symbol of the distance scale centered between the red focus index and the leftmost white "2.8" mark.It's subjective, of course, and dependent in part on your final enlargement factor and viewing distance, but at least in terms of DoF, everything will be "acceptably" sharp, with no evidence of diffraction.Stopping down to f/5.6 + 1/2 stop will squeeze out a little more DoF, but at about f/5.6 + 2/3 stops, I begin to see diffraction-induced softening across the entire frame (not just at the Near and Far limits of the subject space.) At f/8, diffraction is readily discerible when pixel-peeping at 100% on a 27-inch 4k NEC EA275UHD monitor viewed at a distance of 24 inches.In short, try using f/5.6 + 1/2 stop and centering the Infinity symbol of the distance scale between the red focus index and the left-most white f/2.8 mark - then keep the nearest subjects at 1.5m (4.9 ft.) or farther.I optimize everything for viewing on 4k screens, so if you have a 4k monitor, I recommend you download the full size JPGs and view them external to the DPreview HTML interface. For whatever reason, they are a little bit sharper that way - not just for my work, but for everyone's.f/5.6This next shot was also taken at f/5.6, standing about 4 ft. (1.2m) from the tree, with the focusing index on the barrel pointing to the rightmost edge of the Infinity symbol.f/5.6f/5.6As soon as I tilt the lens down a little, permitting the frame to include closer areas of the foreground at my feet, or whenever something protrudes inside that 1.5m Near limit that works fine for fixed-focus shooting, I have to start moving the Index mark away from the Infinity symbol, in tiny increments, inspecting each exposure with the a6000's Enlarge feature, to fine tune the loss of resolution at the Far, while securing acceptable resolution at the closer-than-acceptable Near.Unfortunately, the resolution of the electronic view finder is not as high as the resolution of the sensor (LOL) so, obviously, but I feel compelled to say this, even when I go to 100% magnification in the viewfinder, panning around the image to inspect different areas, the entire image can be "sharper" than the EVF is capable of resolving - which leaves me having to interpolate the Index position that's half-way between two unacceptable Index positions at which the "low-resolution" EVF can actually communicate slight degradations of resolution at the Near or at the Far.Everyone assumes ultra-wide lenses (this one being equivalent to 13.5mm for fullframe) are easy to focus. That's absolutely true when shooting relatively shallow subject spaces that would fit the DoF capability of a longer lens,but once you start trying to squeeze in subject spaces that are proportionately as deep as the lens is short, the ultra-wides are actually much more difficult to focus.Really, the easist solution is to do a lot of "backyard testing" with a tape measure for knowing exactly where your Nears reside in each shot, taking dilligent notes as to what f/Number you used for each frame -AND- precisely where you had positioned the focus index - because you won't find this information in the EXIF data. Then, and this is very important, examine the results of Near and Far resolution, at center and edges -atyouranticipated final enlargement factor and viewing distance.Then you can just set the camera for Aperture-preferred mode and as long as you don't allow anything to come any closer than your pre-determined minimum distance, everything will be "sharp," all the way out to Infinity, foryoursubjective resolution preference atyouranticipated enalargement factor and viewing distance.Found this thread today.And since I use this lens on a EOS M6 II for not so long, I find your observations very helpful, thanx for sharing! I am still learning how to get the exposure right, sometimes it is too dark or, too bright without me recognizing this via display, nor EVF.

Hi Max,I am very dependant on the Histogram features of the Sony a6000, as can be seen both before and after exposure.  I treat digital exposures the same as I do esposure of color reversal (slide) films (a.k.a. chromes), positioning highlight areas that must not be lost to pure white as high on the EV scale as possible, to still retain texture and detail in those areas.Then, varying with the dynamic range of the sensor (or film), I let the shadows fall where they will.  Of, course, a histogram shows you where both extrmes of shadow and highlight will fall, and if both shoulders of the chart can fit within the histogram's X-axis limits, I still use +/- EV compensation to slide the histogram as far to the right (increasing exposure) as I can, without intercepting the rightmost limit - to get as much exposure into the trailing shadows as possible, increasing the overall signal-to-noise ratio of the capture.  (If i'm just after ready-for-use .jpegs, no editing to be applied, I center the hustogram between the left and right extremes of the X-axis.I apologize if I am advising you of things you alreay know, but I have some Sony a6000 friends who had never used its histogram feature until I explained it.  I don't know much about your Canon, but I would look into its pre- and post-exposure histogram features.  😋Note that in the a6000, I also use an HDR-Auto setting to compress the luminance range of any scenes that exceed the sensor's dynamic range, helping the shadow and highlight slopes of the "EV mountain" to fit within the limits of the histogram when, otherwise, even though positioned as far right as possible,without clipping the highlights, shadows would be lost to pure black, retaining no texture or detail, with slightly higher shadow regions being noisy, as well.  Hopefully, your Canon has something like an Automatic HDR feature, too.