Wider isn’t always better, but sometimes having that option can make a world of difference. This just might be the most unexpected lens of 2024.
Lenses, specifically the focal lengths that they offer, have the biggest influence on how good our photographs turn out. Regardless of how sharp or crisp the images can be, the right lenses make good, effective images by allowing us to achieve the composition and visual design that will best illustrate the things that we photograph. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different lenses in the world that offer unique perspectives, but perhaps the most challenging of all is to be able to show a wide perspective while still maintaining a realistic outcome. This is precisely one of the biggest challenges that most real estate photographers encounter specifically when photographing interiors of really tight spaces. In general, bigger spaces give us a lot of room to move around to find the most advantageous angle while smaller spaces pose a lot of limitations. Laowa’s newest ultra-wide angle lens just might be the best available solution.
The Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D for Full Frame Cameras
Upon the announcement of this lens there were already so many aspects to it that made it, to say the least, interesting. For one, a full frame 10mm ultra-wide angle lens is definitely not a common focal length in the market. Yes, the f/2.8 maximum aperture does make it even more interesting but perhaps the two most enticing aspects that you readily see on the box would be that it supposedly has zero distortion and has auto focus. Just seeing those specifications automatically formed a lot of expectations.
Based on what’s existing in the market, one would expect a 10mm f/2.8 zero distortion lens to be massive, heavy, and most likely with an inconvenient bulbous front glass element. If you’ve seen all the 15-30mm, 12-24mm, and 11-24mm full frame lenses from various manufacturers, you’d probably anticipate all those things. However, the Laowa 10mm comes in at just 420 grams (0.92 lbs) with a size of just 82mm x 70mm (3.23 x 2.79 inches). For photographers who use rotating camera mounts, it might be good to know that this lens has a relatively wider base, which makes it not compatible with the collar on the said rotating mounts.
For context, this is lighter than most full frame cameras that it is compatible with and is wider than it is long which means that it probably weighs nothing compared to your standard zoom or walk-around lenses. Literally on top of it all, while it does have a curved front element, the lens was made so that the image is resolving through a significantly small barrel so that the curved front element is barely significant and does not obstruct the plane where filters would be on when installed. While using filters on lenses this wide might not always be necessary in different use cases, it’s still generally good to know that it can work with (some) filters, depending on the purpose.
Distortion and Optical Performance
The thought of a full frame 10mm ultra-wide angle lens isn’t really that farfetched nowadays, but what makes the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 interesting is the “Zero-D” on its label. For the past 10 years, Laowa has been making lenses with unusual focal lengths in combination with specialized features such as very close focusing, extreme magnification, barrel shift, and zero distortion. This lens was launched in celebration of the brand’s 10th year in the market, and the combination of features did indeed turn a lot of heads.
Zero-D has been a mainstay feature for most of Laowa’s ultra-wide angle lenses with the exception of a few fisheye options. However, this is certainly the first time that a wide aperture rectilinear lens came with a 10mm focal length. Distortion has different forms and manifestations in lenses, especially in ultra-wide angle lenses, and to set things straight (pun intended), the kind of distortion in question would be warping or curving of straight lines by the sides and corners of the frame that results from how the lens’ glass elements achieve such a wide angle of view. Not to be mistaken as the distortion that results from tilting the camera up or down (perspective distortion) that causes parallel lines to converge or the distortion that makes objects seem larger when closer to the lens (scale distortion), especially when using wide angle lenses.
The Laowa 10mm f/2.8 does have close to zero distortion in most cases save for when focusing very close, as focus breathing can cause a small extent of distortion, especially considering that it has a minimum focusing distance of 12cm and offers 1:4 magnification. However, for most instances, such as when photographing spaces instead of specific objects wherein one would be focusing with much more distance in between, the lens does give results with no distortion appreciable.
Upon testing throughout the range, it seems that this lens offers the best sharpness at the center at f/8; however, using it from f/8 to f/16 gives more than decent results. When it comes to the corners, the best corner-to-corner sharpness is attained at f/14.
It is, however, important to note that using such a wide angle of view does have its pros and cons when it comes to what it can contribute to the composition of your images. Using it to photograph tight spaces requires paying more attention to camera height and how it affects objects in the foreground and, consequently, how they affect the overall visual design. The same goes for photographing large spaces as scale distortion might affect how distant details (such as tall ceilings and objects on the opposite end) can be perceived. Using this to photograph exteriors would require one to use taller tripods or other possible support solutions to be able to photograph small to medium sized structures from a very close vantage point and also makes it necessary to find an elevated vantage point (perhaps a nearby building) when photographing tall structures. Just like any other tool, knowing when and where to use its features would be the key.
Application
Overall, the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D shines best when using it to photograph small spaces in general. Personally, I dubbed this lens “the cheat code” when shooting small spaces as it made it easier to capture more space without having to shoot panoramas. The autofocus feature is definitely a welcome bonus since the shift lenses that I use for such situations are manual.
As said above, other shooting scenarios such as larger spaces and exteriors will require more attention to perspective and camera height but in general the lens does have a lot of potential uses.
As for other possible genres of photography and even video, using the lens can be beneficial it the wide angle of view complements your artistic intent. Wide-angle lenses aren’t generally the first choice for shooting portraits, but excellent execution can give unique and impactful results. The autofocus is accurate but is notably not as fast as native Sony G Master lenses, but it can still be beneficial in certain scenarios, both for stills and even for video. Overall, in the hands of someone who knows how and when to use such a unique lens, the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 has a lot to offer.
What I Liked:
- Extremely wide angle of view with no distortion
- Relatively compact and all-metal build
- Compatibility with filters
- Autofocus option for Sony FE and Nikon Z versions
What Can Be Improved:
- Faster AF speed (appreciated but can be improved)
- Lens base is wider than usual - not compatible with rotating mounts
Nicco,
Thank you for the insightful review - much appreciated,
One thing that is very important to me, that I did not see mentioned in your review, is vignette. I find any vignette at all to be very distasteful, as I love to see images in which the far edges and deep corners are just as bright and clear as the center. Also, because of the image editing software that I use, correcting for this in post is not an option.
So, what can you tell us about this lens' tendency to vignette, or not to vignette?
Vignette is strong with this one. Four stops wide open, no less than three over the complete aperture range.
Nicco beat me to it with the review. Mine will follow soon, with examples of the vignetting.
That said, it can be corrected in post, most of the times.
3 or 4 stops .... OUCH! Even one stop looks ugly to me. I wonder if they made it to cast a larger image circle, if that would drastically reduce vignetting. Of course that means bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but it would be well worth it in order to not have the ugly dark corners and edges.
I would have to get whole new software in order to remove vignetting properly in post, and I am not willing to switch the software I use, as what I use works great for 99% of what I need to do to my photos.
Its obvious that this was designed to minimize the size and bulk which is why vignetting was just an accepted factor.
Size and bulk and weight don't matter to me AT ALL. So it seems that they prioritized things in this design that aren't attractive to me, at the expense of features that are attractive to me.
Unfortunately, I see this same compromise being made with almost every new lens, from the 3rd party lensmakers as well as the Big 3. Small and light seems to be the priority of every lens design, at the expense of slower apertures and more vignetting, especially the vignetting as many people don't seem to care about it, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't even mention it in your review. But vignetting is a hugely important thing to me. In fact, vignetting and maximum magnification are the two biggest factors that I consider when comparing lenses.
My everyday lens is a Sigma 60-600mm. And before that it was a Sigma 300-800mm, and before that a first generation Canon 400 f2.8 IS. 6 pounds, 13 pounds, and 12 pounds, respectively. So to me all of these lenses like the one you're reviewing here are tiny little things and the difference between 2 pounds and 3 or 4 pounds is actually like nothing at all to me. And yet that is what they are prioritizing. Weird.
It's a trade-off. Choose large and heavy with minimum vignetting, or small and portable with vignetting. Perhaps a lens profile will offer a solution for the latter, although that reduces image quality.
With the Apple editing program I use, "Photos" (formerly iPhoto), I do not think there is any such thing as a "lens profile". Seems more like something that would come in a highfalutin program like Lightroom or Photoshop or something like that.
How much can Apple software Photos do? Is it a raw-editor as well, or is it limited?
Nando,
Apple's program Photos is a RAW converter, as well as a photo editor and file manager/organizer.
The main reason I have stuck with it as my program of choice for so many years is because of the way it stores and organizes my files. It stores them within itself. So there is no need to create folders and sub-folders and make a "registry" or whatever that is that Lightroom users need to do.
My images are NOT stored elsewhere on the computer and then "referenced" by Photos. They are IN Photos. That is where they live. I have had several computer people who couldn't wrap their heads around this and flat out told me that I was wrong because it couldn't possibly work that way. I have had other people say that they would hate it and that they would never want their files to be stored within the editing program itself. But it works super great for me and it was a godsend when I discovered it after moving to an Apple computer after years of being a PC user.
One of the limitations is that it does not have lens corrections. Nor does it have layers, so taking something from one photo and putting it into another photo, and things like that, are not possible. And the cloning tool, while it works great at what it can do, has many things that it cannot do. In fact it's not really a true cloning tool, but more of a spot healing tool.
Photos doesn't store your images "in" the app. Thats not a thing. Photos stores your photos in the Pictures directory of your Mac, just like, say, Lightroom stores photos wherever you select to store the library. (by default, lightroom lets you import and store files almost anywhere)
If you go into settings in Photos you can even see where it is stored and move its location if you like.
The difference with Photos is that it stores all its data in a "package" rather than a typical directory but its essentially the same thing. If you browse to your Photo Library package in the finder and right click on that package and select "show package contents", it will open up the package as a typical directory and you will be able to see all your image files stored in folders just like how any other image edting app works. (they are in the 'originals' directory)
Photos then uses a database in the database directory of that same package which does indeed "reference" your photos. At its core, it's no different than Lightroom or Capture One.
It is designed to obfuscate this from the user and make you "think" it's in the app. The trouble with this design, though, is it makes backup and restore of specific images a nightmare. Its basically just an illusion and no different than how any other app stores and references external files.
No app actually stores data inside itself. A lot of other apps will obfuscate it even more by storing it in the hidden libraries directory of your Mac, which has a folder called "application data." This is where stuff like your browser cache is stored. But make no mistake, all apps on your Mac store their data in the file directory system and then reference it. Its also worth noting that many apps in the applications directory are also organized into packages and you can right click on them to see their data files as well. Some apps will sometimes store data in this package directories as well.
Well at least Photos does all of this stuff for me, in the background, so I don't have to bother with it or try to wrap my head around it. Back when I used PCs it was a horrible nightmare having to work with file folders every time I wanted to download a new batch of pics.
You said something about backing up and restoring specific photos being a "nightmare" with the system that Photos uses. I couldn't disagree more. I back up specific files routinely, and it is so much easier and more streamlined than it ever was when I used PCs and Lightroom.
Backing up the whole catalogue is easy, but restoring, say, an individual file isn't because the package is treated as a single large file. I'm not sure how many images you have but lets say you have 10tb of images stored in photos and need to retrieve a specific image from your cloud backup. The folder structure of the package isn't designed in a way that it is easy to navigate so you either have to sift through hundreds of confusing folders that photos created OR you have to download the whole package from your cloud backup and open it in Photos.
The other issue is the lack of cross-compatibility. You are locked into using Apple's ecosystem. (This is a good ecosystem and one I use as well, but having your entire library organized in a chaotic manner is effectively a nightmare to re-organize if you move to Linux or Windows at some point) (if you are curious what I mean by Chaotic, go into your package and look at the contents of that originals folder)
Not saying it's all bad or that you shouldn't use photos, but just important to understand the strengths and pitfalls.
Personally, I hate any app that tries to obfuscate my storage from just being files in a file system. The new Lightroom (not classic) tries to do that and its why I don't use it. I also recently started learning Fusion 360 and they absolutely mandate it, there is no concept of locally stored files and it drives me crazy.
Ryan Cooper wrote:
"Backing up the whole catalogue is easy, but restoring, say, an individual file isn't because the package is treated as a single large file. I'm not sure how many images you have but lets say you have 10tb of images stored in photos and need to retrieve a specific image from your cloud backup. The folder structure of the package isn't designed in a way that it is easy to navigate so you either have to sift through hundreds of confusing folders that photos created OR you have to download the whole package from your cloud backup and open it in Photos."
Ryan,
I think you're way overthinking this. First of all, I do not have, nor do I EVER plan to have, any kind of cloud backup. To me such a thing would be inane. In my opinion, cloud usage in any form is idiotic, at least for my lifestyle. I want backups that I have complete control over and ready access to, which means images on external hard drives. I want and need access to backups when I go a month with no internet access. It boggles my mind that so many people have lifestyles that keep internet access available so frequently. Don't any of y'all just go to the mountains and camp for a couple months, in a tent? How the heck would I get access to the stuff in the cloud then? And yes I mean actual remote mountains, where there is NOT a town 10 or 15 miles away. Think Pasayten Wilderness.
Backing up a specific image from my photo library is super quick and easy. As you know, Photos automatically stores all of my images in one big place, and it does so chronologically. So if a client asks for a specific thing, such as an image of a Ross's Gull, I know that I shot Ross's Gulls in 2018 so I just open the photo library, scroll to June of 2018, see the thumbnails of the Ross's Gull photos, and pick the best ones out. Then I export them as jPegs or whatever and send them off to the client. The whole process takes 2 to 3 minutes, even less if I already know exactly which image is the one I want to submit.
Same process goes for backing up a specific photo. In Photos, I just click on "library" at the top of the page, then scroll the to image, then export it as an original RAW to the external hard drive. Super easy and super quick. I actually bet I could find any image I have ever taken, and back it up by exporting a RAW to an external drive, in under two minutes.
One thing that makes this a rather quick and easy process is that I cull aggressively, so I only have the true "keepers" ... otherwise I would have a couple million files to look through. But due to my diligent culling, I only have about 200,000 images saved in my photo library. Easy to find anything quickly that way.
Why are you taking this so personally? I really don't care how you approach your tech strategy, I was mainly just commenting to correct your incorrect statement so you (and others) wouldn't be making decisions based on faulty information.
In my opinion, your strategy is a house of cards, but if it works for you, that's totally cool, do what works for you.
For my part, my life's work exists on local drives in my home, in the cloud, and in a clone of my local drives that I keep at my parent's house on the other side of the country, this why I can be 100% certain that my life's work will never be wiped out by a random crisis like a fire, flood, or theft.
PS: Why do you need access to your old work in a tent in the wilderness? I, too, do a lot of camping, and I've never found the need to be working with my old work while in the bush. Stuff I shoot while off the grid gets backed up to small SSDs while out in the wild, I may work on that work then, if I brought a laptop, and then when I get home it gets pushed back into the main system but I couldn't imagine running around with many terabytes worth of old work in the backcountry. Even on my machine at home, I only ever store the current year's work on it, everything else is in long term archives as described above.
PSS: Do you mostly shoot jpg? Because 200,000 raw images depending on the camera will be between 5 and 10tb, I really doubt your portable laptop has that much storage to just keep your entire catalogue in a single library? You must split the work up somehow.
Thanks for the explanation. Although I know Ryan Cooper is correct. Apple also stores images in a separate cloud location and uses a reference database to store all edits and other information.
No matter how it works under the hood, if it works for you, that's all it matters. You just need to know the limitations of the software you're using. That accounts for all software, no matter the brand.
Thanks Nando
What some people think of as a limitation of Apple's Photos, to me it is actually an advantage. Why? Because the storage of the photos is all automated, and I don't have to do a darn thing inasmuch as setting up or creating file folders is concerned. When I used a PC and Lightroom it was a nightmare, because it required me to save new images to an existing folder, or to create a new folder for them to live in. With Photos, all of this "just happens" without me having to tell the photos where to live. What a godsend for a prolific photographer such as myself! When I see friends and coworkers and competitors creating folders and sub-folders, and naming them, I just chuckle, because I have it so much easier and more streamlined than they could ever imagine!
Hey Tom! Yeah I’ll just echo what Nando said. Maybe a bit less than 3 stops when using smaller apertures. Most instances, fixed in post especially with bracketing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I ordered this lens and I am looking forward to using it.
Which leads me to a question: Have other folks gotten their hands on this lens? I ordered mine on March 5th and I have not received it yet. I keep hearing it will be a few more weeks.
Availability is limited worldwide and it seems to be unpredictable.
I have this lens for my Nikon Z system. I had to order it from a dealer in China to get it sooner than its availability in the US, and I ended up negotiating a price slightly higher than the US list price. I have never had a lens this wide in my 40 year career, but I had a specific job in early July 2024 that I wanted it for. This lens is excellent. It is all metal and glass, and it’s really a solid lens. In my tests, its most useful aperture range is f:5.6 thru f:11. Unlike the reviewer, I found f:16 to be much less sharp overall due to diffraction, but at f:5.6 everything was in focus from close to far away. I shoot large outdoor sculpture installations for artists and municipalities. The lens has almost no distortion (when level) or vignetting to speak of. I have posted here a shot for that job I mentioned where the lens was not level and a street shot in B&W where it was level. You won’t be able to see it’s sharpness from these posted jpegs, but you can see it’s distortion characteristics (and lack of distortion) from these posted images. The lens is not as sharp as my S class Nikkor Z lenses, but it is very good. It is much sharper than 2 other ultra-wide lenses that I tested. I wouldn’t use it if it did not measure up to my professional standards. The lens accepts my Nikon 77mm CPL filter with no visible cut-off. It’s an unusual lens that requires some learning in how to use it effectively without its being crazy looking, but it does what no other lens can do. I really like it and can recommend it.
For startrails is fantastic, though you will need to be closer to object compared to you friends and might be in their frame. For Milkyway works nice, still the MW will render like a slim band. Works very nice with IR too, did not notice Hotspot in the middle. Working with 100x100 front filter I saw the edges of it, with 150x150 no issue, and by mounting 82mm front filter with stepup ring also no issue at all.
Great lens for night MW's or day with sky clouds. I have been using the Voigtlander Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical Lens for Sony E. for many years not AF but once set is sharp close or far just saying AF not really needed. f/2.8 is great for night very sharp close and to the horizon.
1. and 2. Voigtlander 3. and 4. Laowa 10mm f2.8 Zero-D FF II C & D Dreamer.
The great thing about the f/2.8 is in portrait view and doing a panorama you can capture the MW arc in one roll even in August when the top of MW is way over head. But when doing a landscape view it still is going to be straight across the sky as in #4.
Watch fingers when hand holding. Will not fit in the new camera L bracket with the round around the lens when on the twisty screen cameras