# Venus Optics officially announces the Laowa RF 11mm f/4.5 FF RL



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2021)

> Venus Optics has officially announced a new lens for the RF mount, the Laowa RF 11mm f/4.5 FF RL. This new lens is extremely compact measuring only 2.5″(6.3cm) long and weighs 8.9oz (254g). With only 5 aperture blades, you’re also able to create 10-point sunstars. This is Laowa’s 7th official release for the RF mount.
> The Laowa RF 11mm f/4.5 FF RL retails for $699USD and is available now directly from Venus Optics and it will make its way to official dealers soon.
> You can check out all of the available third-party lenses for the RF mount here.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## magnum92 (Feb 19, 2021)

I love how they are creativ and pushing the lines.
Im still waiting for the laowa RF 15mm f/4 1:1 macro lens.
I own the EF version but changed completely to the R system with my cameras.
I love the lens it makes so much fun to just shoot for fun, but of course also for serious work.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 19, 2021)

magnum92 said:


> I love how they are creativ and pushing the lines.
> Im still waiting for the laowa RF 15mm f/4 1:1 macro lens.
> I own the EF version but changed completely to the R system with my cameras.
> I love the lens it makes so much fun to just shoot for fun, but of course also for serious work.


I'm curious why you wouldn't just spring for the EF->RF adapter to keep using the laowa 15mm lens?

I love the thing...I'm actually adapting it and using it on my Leica M10M.....

I find that one of the GREAT things I love most about mirrorless cameras, is being able to readily adapt such a huge number of lenses, both vintage and new, to the new mirrorless bodies.

I think that's one of the strengths of the mirrorless bodies out today....embrace it.


----------



## melgross (Feb 19, 2021)

If the numbers from their chart are 10L/mm and 30L/mm, then it’s almost useless. A chart with 10L/mm means almost nothing.


----------



## magnum92 (Feb 19, 2021)

cayenne said:


> I'm curious why you wouldn't just spring for the EF->RF adapter to keep using the laowa 15mm lens?
> 
> I love the thing...I'm actually adapting it and using it on my Leica M10M.....
> 
> ...


 I use the adapter and use the lens alot as a allround for small hikes, versatile light combo for going out into the nature but also travel.

The almost dont care problem is the extra length but the big problem is I dont get the maximum 1:1 reproduction somehow. 
I dint made exact test and comparisons but I guess I need to.
My feelings says I could get 1mm closer but still it is almost nothing and it just dont feel right anymore, after some years and alot of traveling I anyway would like to replace it for a native one now on the new system.


----------



## jvillain (Feb 19, 2021)

Does any one know what C-Dreamer signifies and why there is a chunk missing from the mount?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 19, 2021)

melgross said:


> If the numbers from their chart are 10L/mm and 30L/mm, then it’s almost useless. A chart with 10L/mm means almost nothing.


10 and 30 L/mm are the standard for all MTF charts and that one actually looks pretty good for an 11mm lens. Odds are it will be better on periphery when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 as well. Hopefully Brian will test it at TDP and we can see what it looks like on a chart, but that may not be the whole story either since it might have some field curvature that could be used to advantage for better results than indicated on a flat chart. The small size makes it very interesting for field work.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 19, 2021)

A very interesting new lens. My RF collection is still pending any move in the UWA segment, the RF 15-35 is not what I want, so I am using EF lenses while waiting for some new RF lenses to materialize. I like the quality of my EF 11-24L, it makes some unique pictures in so many ways but the bulk is something of a buzzkill for travel photography. Will the capabilities of the RF mount result in an RF 10-24 or RF 11-24 that is more compact? That is my hope, but if not the option of a relatively compact 11mm prime and then a 14-35 L IS or similar could be very tempting. I love my other UWA zoom, the EF 16-35 L IS, while it is of course more limited in range it is a pleasant size and weight more suited to a traveling camera bag.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 19, 2021)

magnum92 said:


> I love how they are creativ and pushing the lines.
> Im still waiting for the laowa RF 15mm f/4 1:1 macro lens.
> I own the EF version but changed completely to the R system with my cameras.
> I love the lens it makes so much fun to just shoot for fun, but of course also for serious work.


Me too. Love that little macro. I do use it quite a lot with an adapter. In fact, that's where I keep my adapter. Would eagerly purchase an RF version. 

Now that we finally have full frame cameras with fully-articulated screens, I feel the Laowa 15mm f/4 Macro can really come into its own. Getting within 1 cm of a bug in a marsh isn't easy with a freaking 5d4. The flippy/tilty on the R5 and R6 brings whole new worlds into convenient range with that lens.


----------



## melgross (Feb 19, 2021)

Dragon said:


> 10 and 30 L/mm are the standard for all MTF charts and that one actually looks pretty good for an 11mm lens. Odds are it will be better on periphery when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 as well. Hopefully Brian will test it at TDP and we can see what it looks like on a chart, but that may not be the whole story either since it might have some field curvature that could be used to advantage for better results than indicated on a flat chart. The small size makes it very interesting for field work.


10 isn’t “standard”. Some companies use 20 and 40. Some use 30 and 60. 10 and 30 is really lowballing it.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 20, 2021)

Not in the market for this, but nice to see a third party vendor going all-in with RF lenses. Puts pressure on the others to follow suit.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 20, 2021)

Generally a good vlogging lens just with 4k on an RP or on a C70. What about a harness which allows to focus this lens externally via an ultrasonic or optical distance meter and some standard video gear?
EDIT: 11mm @ f/4.5 shoud not be too critical with a focus system which is precise within 2cm ...


----------



## Kit. (Feb 20, 2021)

Interesting specs, but the images don't look convincing on a 4K laptop display.


----------



## abnagfab (Feb 20, 2021)

Still waiting for the Canon RF 10-24/4. In the meantime will keep adapting the EF 11-24/4 unless something more compelling than this comes out.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Ever since I realized Canon was using other lenses to shoot promotional shots than the ones they were advertising for I stopped looking at promotional shots...


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 21, 2021)

melgross said:


> 10 isn’t “standard”. Some companies use 20 and 40. Some use 30 and 60. 10 and 30 is really lowballing it.


The lowballing makes me wonder about sharpness, but its compatible with 100mm square filters, which I already own. I doubt the rumoured RF 10-15mm would be.

As I haven't upgraded to mirrorless yet, I'll be waiting for reviews.


----------



## dilbert (Feb 21, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


When was the 9mm/f5.6 announced? Oh, the 9mm/f5.6 isn't available for Canon RF, only Leica/Sony/Nikon.


----------



## melgross (Feb 22, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The lowballing makes me wonder about sharpness, but its compatible with 100mm square filters, which I already own. I doubt the rumoured RF 10-15mm would be.
> 
> As I haven't upgraded to mirrorless yet, I'll be waiting for reviews.


I expect low priced lenses like these to have decent quality, but not “great” quality. Every so often an inexpensive lens from a third tier maker such as this one lucks out, and performs above its weight. Truth is that it’s more luck than anything else.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 22, 2021)

melgross said:


> 10 isn’t “standard”. Some companies use 20 and 40. Some use 30 and 60. 10 and 30 is really lowballing it.


I see Olympus uses 20 and 60, but they are using lines/mm as opposed to line pairs/mm, so that is still 10 and 30 line pairs/mm. Please advise who is using 20 and 40 or 30 and 60 line pairs/mm.


----------



## melgross (Feb 26, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I see Olympus uses 20 and 60, but they are using lines/mm as opposed to line pairs/mm, so that is still 10 and 30 line pairs/mm. Please advise who is using 20 and 40 or 30 and 60 line pairs/mm.


They mean line pairs. It’s assumed, they don’t have to say it.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 28, 2021)

melgross said:


> They mean line pairs. It’s assumed, they don’t have to say it.


They specifically say lines/millimeter. I don't think that is a typo across many MTF charts. You need to spend a little time with Roger Ciclala's MTF charts, There are very few lenses that get out of the mud at 60 lp/mm. and then usually only in the center. Here are some examples https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/ . Note that Roger normally only tests to 50 lp/mm and this was a far out special case test.


----------



## melgross (Mar 1, 2021)

Dragon said:


> They specifically say lines/millimeter. I don't think that is a typo across many MTF charts. You need to spend a little time with Roger Ciclala's MTF charts, There are very few lenses that get out of the mud at 60 lp/mm. and then usually only in the center. Here are some examples https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/ . Note that Roger normally only tests to 50 lp/mm and this was a far out special case test.


Yes, few lenses are great at 60lp/mm. And that’s why few companies go that high. But still, 10/30 is just awful. Ignore the 10.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 1, 2021)

melgross said:


> Yes, few lenses are great at 60lp/mm. And that’s why few companies go that high. But still, 10/30 is just awful. Ignore the 10.


Not really. 10 shows the contrast of the lens and is thus useful. The biggest issue at 60 lp/mm and above is that the slightest bit of field curvature will kill the MTF chart. Roger recently did a couple of articles for DPR on the subject. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-field-curvature-for-fun-and-profit and https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7031211310/roger-cicala-field-curvature-pt-2 . Many lenses are much sharper at the edges than the standard planar MTF chart would indicate. The edge focus is just not in the same plane with the center focus. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-best-individual-focus-mtf-curves/ . Enjoy.


----------



## melgross (Mar 3, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Not really. 10 shows the contrast of the lens and is thus useful. The biggest issue at 60 lp/mm and above is that the slightest bit of field curvature will kill the MTF chart. Roger recently did a couple of articles for DPR on the subject. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-field-curvature-for-fun-and-profit and https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7031211310/roger-cicala-field-curvature-pt-2 . Many lenses are much sharper at the edges than the standard planar MTF chart would indicate. The edge focus is just not in the same plane with the center focus. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-best-individual-focus-mtf-curves/ . Enjoy.


The contrast of the lens at almost unusable low resolution. Why not go to 5? The contrast could be almost 100% across the board?


----------

