[Klaus]

Fast, wide 'n cute ...

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1001-laowa75f2mft

[JJ_SO]

Am I assuming correctly, that there's no automatic diaphragm as well?

 

I could live with manual focus, but Laowa ist just making everything lowcost and lowcomfort. I consider them as too expensive for what they offer.

 

And while you appear to look at the "build quality" as "is it made mostly out of metal?", I usually take a side look on disassembly sites or my own disassemblies. The Laowas may be made out of metal, but for me build quality goes beyond materials. Just saying.4 tiny screws made out of lowcost brass to fix the shift mechanism of the 15 mm macro, it's supercheap plastic lenshood leave me sceptical to Laowa.

[Guest]

Interesting lens. I'll be curious to see what it will be selling for. Might be nice to have in my bag just in case, if not expensive.

 

In the first page/paragraph, I was wondering if "sounds existing" should be "sounds exciting".

[Klaus]

Am I assuming correctly, that there's no automatic diaphragm as well?

 

I could live with manual focus, but Laowa ist just making everything lowcost and lowcomfort. I consider them as too expensive for what they offer.

 

And while you appear to look at the "build quality" as "is it made mostly out of metal?", I usually take a side look on disassembly sites or my own disassemblies. The Laowas may be made out of metal, but for me build quality goes beyond materials. Just saying.4 tiny screws made out of lowcost brass to fix the shift mechanism of the 15 mm macro, it's supercheap plastic lenshood leave me sceptical to Laowa.

 

 

I can't disassemble lenses in order to evaluate the internal structures.

When you buy a car, you don't disassemble it either but you still get a quality perception during driving.

Of course, that is subjective. 

 

The aspect that I'm most sceptical about with the Laowas isn't the construction itself but centering. After all even the big boys struggle here. And I do mention centering in the reviews.

[JJ_SO]

I know your intention is good, Klaus. I just think, that a metal shell alone can't be called in each case "build quality is great" or whatever. This can lead to wrong assumptions. But of course, this verdict about "build quality" you also mention at all Sigma Art lenses, which are only partly made of metal and partly high tech plastics.

[Klaus]

Just mentioning ... the Sigma 85mm received 5*. 

 

It is not just about metal. I would have no problem to give 5* for an all-plastic lens (well, the mount should be metal) if I had the impression that it is tough and fulfills all the criteria. At the end of the day it is a check-mark list:

- does something wobble (no)

- is there an inner lens tube that moves (no)

- does it have a constant physical length during focusing/zooming (yes)

- does it feel hollow (no)

- quality perception of the used materials (very good)

- weather sealing (no)

- quality of the lens hood (very good)

- how smooth are the control rings (a bit tight)

- does it have electronic coupling (no)

- is the AF decent enough (n/a

 

I am slightly surprised though that you started the discussion with the Laowa but not with -say- Fuji. Fuji has usually a high quality perception as well whereas the internal construction seems to be soso at best (plus centering issues as well). Locally they don't even bother repairing them.


Personally I would also never touch a Tamron lens. They have my zero confidence vote. Yet for the reviews I have to put that personal opinion to the side lines and provide a rating according to the criteria that we defined.

 

I agree, however, that this is a subjective category. 

[thxbb12]

I am slightly surprised though that you started the discussion with the Laowa but not with -say- Fuji. Fuji has usually a high quality perception as well whereas the internal construction seems to be soso at best (plus centering issues as well). Locally they don't even bother repairing them.

 

Hi Klaus,

 

I'm curious about this statement: "Fuji has usually a high quality perception as well whereas the internal construction seems to be soso at best" ?

 

It's quite the opposite to what Roger Cicala from lensrentals.com says about the Fuji 55-200's tear down (which is a consumer lens):

 

"As for our impressions, first and foremost, the Fuji lenses are a bit more complicated than most we’ve tackled, but not hugely so. The construction, especially when considering this is a consumer-price zoom lens, is impressive. Some things, like the number of zooming elements, reminds us a bit of the Leica zoom we disassembled last week. There are obviously some optical adjustments made during the assembly of this lens, and that always makes me feel more comfortable. I’m uncomfortable when the manufacturer just assumes assembly is going to be fine – but since optical adjustment is what I do all day, that may just be my perspective.

The overall construction is excellent. There was no place during this disassembly that either of us thought we saw a weak point that would be likely to cause problems. It’s not massively over engineered, but it’s very solidly constructed. It’s definitely better constructed than what we would expect from a $600 zoom. This looks like a lens that was designed by people who know how to make reliable lenses."

[Klaus]

It's funny that their comment is based on the 55-200mm. This was the only zoom lens with a complete mechanical breakdown that I've ever experienced (jammed zoom ring). The 16-50mm felt like the 55-200mm prior of the jamming ( zooming produced a click noise in the middle range ).

The 18-135mm has no proper zoom stop at 135mm (two samples).

A higher decentering ratio compared to other manufacturers.

There's also the famous rattling when "shaking" a Fujinon (some of them) - although you may argue that those lenses could have a 2nd use for making music or something ... chakka ....

As mentioned no repairs - just exchanges - what does that tell me ?

I, for one, always start praying when buying a Fujinon (also Tamron, Pentax - I gave up with Tokina).

[JJ_SO]

This thread was about the Laowa, so I started doubting the equation "all metal = good build quality here". It's a bit complicated to try to search in the forum, but I did mention Fuji's inner construction of the 56/1.2 (which you like in it's APD-version so much that you kept it for yourself, if I remember correctly).

 

The Fuji belongs to a series of meanwhile 4 lenses meeting the floor without I wanted it to do so. Admittedly it had the toughest floor (marble) and the possibly highest airway to impact, falling out of an open slingshot bag. It cracked, as the camera did a bit as well (EVF broken). So I saw the inner parts - which are basically plastics. I got it repaired, though. Fuji Switzerland sent it to Fuji England and got it back to me. It was repaired, although not too well. The aperture ring was moving better before and after the crack than after the repair.

 

The candidate of a jump out of the same bag before was a Nikkor 24/1.4 G. Went down a wooden stair with aluminium enforcements at the borders of the steps and met the concrete after 5 or 6 "thumps". I don't know, I heard it in slow motion...   Lens covers were on different places. What happened to the "made in Japan", metal housing? A dent in the filter thread - that was all and it was working just as before the falling.

 

Laowa's 15/4 macro was seeking freedom out of a bicycle bag, I still don't know how it could escape, but it was a short trip down to a field path with pebbles. Solid pebbles, not the tiny ones. Weak spot is the shifting mechanism. I hesitate to send it in. It's not much of a use after my self repair. The shift is working again - if you want to call a center, top and bottom position "working shift mechanism", but it is designed that way. As Macro lens, without automatic diaphragm, it's not much of a practical use and it was not exactly brilliant before the falling.

 

Last candidate was the Sigma 35/1.4 Art which I wanted to check for correct AF (and reliability of focus) after it came back from Sigma service Switzerland. You know, Sigma CH offers a lifetime service with one annual check for free, if there's a repair needed I just pay the parts. What happened to it after it fell down from tripod height to an oak parquet, attached to the D810? One of the rails for the lens hood was halfway broken. I still can attach the hood. Otherwise everything works as before, the Sigma plastics just swallowed the shock and digested it. It didn't went so well for the parquet, though, although oak is supposed to be hard wood.

 

I try to be careful, I really do, but there are those days... I just wonder which will become No. 5? Bets are open!

 

As for Tamron: I'd agree, except the last models which appear to be a bit more solid construction. A duel of Tamron 150-600 G2 and Fuji 100-400? I would not bet much on the Fuji although metal shell. I'll keep you posted if it happens (knock on head wood).

 

As for the rattle: Ever cared to shake a Nikon 14-24? Sigma 50/1.4 Art? All Fujis with OIS feel like they just filled the parts in and forgot to tighten them. Tamron 150-600G? No noise, no matter how you shake it - so it's not always the OIS/VR mechanism or the AF drives. But the rattle doesn't distract or bother me too much.

 

Maybe the Fujis are designed as prayer mills?   You just need to Ooooohmm a bit more?

[Klaus]

About the Laowa 15/4 - that is a different story.

The construction quality is worse than the 105mm, 12mm and 7.5mm

The 60mm f/2.8 is also meh.

 

The new "blue ring" lenses are significantly improved from what I can tell.