08-20-2017, 11:30 PM
Quote:PZ calls it equiv. to a 15/4 on FF , that Laowa
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that it is really a 15 mm FF equivalent, and so is the aperture, from a DoF POV. However, the 15 mm F/4 Laowa is a completely different animal, being an UWA macro lens, so IMO, the 7.5 mm F/2 MFT Laowa currently comes closest to the 10 mm F/2.8 FF Laowa, as an UWA lens. Ideally one would liek to have a 5 mm lens obviously, as that has teh same AoV on MFT as the 10 mm on FF. Also, th e15 F/4 is not all that great, IMO, but the 7.5 actually is, as is the 10 mm FF .
I considered getting one myself, but since I already own two 7-14 mm MFT zooms (the Panny and the Oly Pro), I don't really gain anything other than a slightly smaller lens and a 1 stop faster aperture, which I do not necessarily need. The Panny is not all that big anyway, so I can live with that when I want to go even lighter than I already do compared to my Canon kit .
As to the equivalence bit, it is about time that people start realizing it is utter nonsense. It is all about shooting with the gear that is appropriate, for whatever reasons, and equivalence is only good fro showing the limits of systems rather than establishing whether one is better or not. There is a reason why there are so many different hammers in existence, from sledgehammer to the tiniest hammer for nails of 1 cm and less: it allows the selection of the right hammer for the job. The same is true for cameras. However, let me stop my rant here .
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....