# Venus Optics will launch an RF 12-24mm f/5.6 lens in 2021



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2021)

> Venus Optics looks like they’re going to have a busy 2021 with new lenses, yesterday we reported that the company would launch a new Laowa Argus line of f/0.95 prime lenses for various mirrorless mounts, but it appears they aren’t done there.
> According to Sony Addict, Venus Optics will also announce a 12-24mm f/5.6 lens for various full-frame mirrorless mounts, including Canon’s RF mount.
> Laowa 12-24mm f/5.6 Specifications:
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## melgross (Jan 12, 2021)

Eck, that’s slow.


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 12, 2021)

But small and light
Edit:
And 0.4x magnification


----------



## Besisika (Jan 12, 2021)

melgross said:


> Eck, that’s slow.


look at the magnification and minimum focusing distance. That is actually very interesting to me.


----------



## LeBlobe (Jan 12, 2021)

yes im having fun with RF35mm 0.5X. Would be curious to see at 12-24mm 0.4X. Depending on IQ i could be tempted by this over upcoming RF14-35 f/4. Also no IS , the canon one will have it i think.

edit: hmm is the 0.4X on whole zoom range? not sure if all zoom work the same


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 12, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> yes im having fun with RF35mm 0.5X. Would be curious to see at 12-24mm 0.4X. Depending on IQ i could be tempted by this over upcoming RF15-35 f/4. Also no IS , the canon one will have it i think.
> 
> edit: hmm is the 0.4X on whole zoom range? not sure if all zoom work the same



This lens is 50mm only, so no zoom. If you are asking of the 12-24 can reproduce 0.4x at all focal lengths, you'd have to look at the patent/tech specs. Typically the max magnification only occurs at one end of the range. 

Would someone even want macro at UWA focal lengths? I'd think the distortion would make it hard to make a pleasing subject. I'm asking honestly - I never really thought of macro reproduction at these FLs before. 

-Brian


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 12, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Would someone even want macro at UWA focal lengths?


I like my Laowa 15mm 1:1 Makro.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 12, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> I like my Laowa 15mm 1:1 Makro.


I do. I own the 24-70 F4 and happy with it, but not wide enough.


----------



## LeBlobe (Jan 12, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Would someone even want macro at UWA focal lengths? I'd think the distortion would make it hard to make a pleasing subject. I'm asking honestly - I never really thought of macro reproduction at these FLs before.
> 
> -Brian



I didnt really try that wide but im interested in it , for shots of still life that we see big background or environment.


----------



## jvillain (Jan 13, 2021)

Besisika said:


> look at the magnification and minimum focusing distance. That is actually very interesting to me.



I am thinking this is intended for macro like shots but because it isn't 1:1 or greater they aren't calling it a macro. Some cmpanies will call ant thing a macro lens if they think it will sell lenses *cough* Canon *cough*.



bbasiaga said:


> Would someone even want macro at UWA focal lengths? I'd think the distortion would make it hard to make a pleasing subject. I'm asking honestly - I never really thought of macro reproduction at these FLs before.



The Laowa probe lens is some thing like 24mm F24. But it is at the top of my list of lenses I want becuase of the look it gives. 24 on FF is also really great indoors or if you are shooting widescreen for video.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 13, 2021)

melgross said:


> Eck, that’s slow.


I work on a tripod so no issue with the aperture. Even so at 200 ISO I am shooting easily handheld outside at f11.


----------



## padam (Jan 13, 2021)

It won't come with electronic contacts so it will be a pain to use on Canon bodies with IBIS that has a separate setting for each custom mode. That means if you use custom modes and want to turn IBIS on or off or set the focal length, you need to set that in every separate mode...


----------



## wanderer23 (Jan 13, 2021)

Poor L-mount alliance...


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 13, 2021)

melgross said:


> Eck, that’s slow.



How many lenses wider than 14mm are faster?

AFAIK, only Canon's EF 11-24mm f/4L and Sigma's 12-24mm f/4, and one stop isn't that much faster.

Added in editing: I missed the Venus 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D for Canon RF Cameras.


----------



## hunck (Jan 13, 2021)

I own the Sigma 12-24 ART but that thing is heavy! I may be dreaming but in the future I hope to get a Canon RF10-22 f/4 for architecture and this lightweight medium priced 12-24 f/5.6 for hiking.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 14, 2021)

hunck said:


> I own the Sigma 12-24 ART but that thing is heavy!



The new f/4 version? I had both f/4.5-5.6, and don't recall either being heavy.


----------



## melgross (Jan 15, 2021)

Besisika said:


> look at the magnification and minimum focusing distance. That is actually very interesting to me.


Sure. But depth of field will harder to control. I suppose the monetary savings will be worth it to a a number of people who other wise couldn’t afford one of these faster zooms.


----------



## melgross (Jan 15, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> How many lenses wider than 14mm are faster?
> 
> AFAIK, only Canon's EF 11-24mm f/4L and Sigma's 12-24mm f/4, and one stop isn't that much faster.
> 
> Added in editing: I missed the Venus 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D for Canon RF Cameras.


I don’t know, one stop is a lot. Otherwise why bother getting an f2.8 rather than a 4. Or a 50 1.4 rather than an f2. I could go on. Yes, one stop is a lot.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 15, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> This lens is 50mm only, so no zoom. If you are asking of the 12-24 can reproduce 0.4x at all focal lengths, you'd have to look at the patent/tech specs. Typically the max magnification only occurs at one end of the range.
> 
> Would someone even want macro at UWA focal lengths? I'd think the distortion would make it hard to make a pleasing subject. I'm asking honestly - I never really thought of macro reproduction at these FLs before.
> 
> -Brian


As a herper I love Laowa 15mm Macro. Examples you really should look at for how much fun UWA macro really is:









Laowa 15mm F4 1:1 wide angle macro lens


All images in this album are taken with the Laowa 15mm F4 1:1 wide angle macro lens. More info about that lens here: www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-15mm-f4-wide-angle-1x-mac...




www.flickr.com












0M4A5794 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 15, 2021)

melgross said:


> I don’t know, one stop is a lot. Otherwise why bother getting an f2.8 rather than a 4. Or a 50 1.4 rather than an f2. I could go on. Yes, one stop is a lot.



The EF 800mm is f/5.6. Eck, that’s slow.

The RF 600mm & 800mm are f/11. Eck, that's ****ing slow.

EF 17-40mm, EF 24-70mm, and two EF 70-200mm f/4? Who'd buy them when there are f/2.8 versions?

A one stop difference isn't a lot, and f/5.6 isn't "eck, slow". Those are reasonable trade offs.


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 15, 2021)

melgross said:


> I don’t know, one stop is a lot. Otherwise why bother getting an f2.8 rather than a 4. Or a 50 1.4 rather than an f2. I could go on. Yes, one stop is a lot.


Yes, You are right but have a look at the dimensions and compare a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with this lens:
Sigma *φ102x131,5mm* , Laowa *φ69.4 × 74mm* That is a lot!
Sigma *1150g*, Laowa* 497g* That is a lot!
And this does not include the EF-RF adaptor. 
If You have to carry the lens for a few days on a hike the difference would be a huge advantage.

But of course the Sigma is an ART lens and the Laowa has also to compete in IQ.
Laowa still has a 10-18mm f/5.6 lens with E-mount and it's IQ has not convinced me (I don't own or have used one, but the pictures I'have seen on the homepage and reviews).


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 15, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> edit: hmm is the 0.4X on whole zoom range? not sure if all zoom work the same


I think only at 24mm because of the MFD:


> Shortest shooting distance: 15cm


Lens and flange distance subtracted the distance between lens and subject would be around 50mm.
The 15mm Makro has a distance of just 4mm with 1:1 magnification.
The RF35 has 70mm with 0,5x mag. You don't have to calculate to see the 0,4x magnification is not possible at the wide end.

EDIT:
A UWA makro lens in action and with a mag less than 0,4:1


----------



## melgross (Jan 15, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The EF 800mm is f/5.6. Eck, that’s slow.
> 
> The RF 600mm & 800mm are f/11. Eck, that's ****ing slow.
> 
> ...


I knew someone would make a silly comment like that. Yes, we know the 600 and 800 are a stop slow, or even two stops in the case of the 600. But then, those are VERY inexpensive, VERY light, and can be compacted for carrying. 

it’s also silly to compare the f4 to the f2.8 that way. F4 is still fast enough for most situations, and they are lighter and cheaper. I said for this that if it’s less expensive, people will buy it for that, mostly.

but while we’re used to slow lenses for long tele lenses, unless you’re buying a wide angle for sheet film, 5.6 is really slow for a wide, or wide zoom.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 15, 2021)

melgross said:


> I knew someone would make a silly comment like that.



The silly comment that aperture can be traded off against other things, such as price, weight, and size? No! That's not true! That's impossible!



melgross said:


> it’s also silly to compare the f4 to the f2.8 that way. F4 is still fast enough for most situations, and they are lighter and cheaper.



Sometimes f/11 is fast enough, but, no - f/5.6 is "Eck, slow", no buts, no ifs, no nothing.



melgross said:


> but while we’re used to slow lenses for long tele lenses, unless you’re buying a wide angle for sheet film, 5.6 is really slow for a wide, or wide zoom.



Up until ~2015, the fastest lens as wide as 12mm was the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. AFAIK, prior to its release at 2003, there was nothing that wide. But nowadays, that ISO goes higher and cleaner, f/5.6 is too slow. Give me a break.


----------



## melgross (Jan 17, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> Yes, You are right but have a look at the dimensions and compare a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with this lens:
> Sigma *φ102x131,5mm* , Laowa *φ69.4 × 74mm* That is a lot!
> Sigma *1150g*, Laowa* 497g* That is a lot!
> And this does not include the EF-RF adaptor.
> ...


Of course, I mentioned the size and weight differences earlier. The price will be a major decision point too.

i’m not saying this will be a bad lens (though it might!), or that’s it’s a bad choice for those who are making the choice for the three main reasons, size, weight and cost. I’m just saying that for a wide angle zoom, it’s really slow.


----------



## melgross (Jan 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The silly comment that aperture can be traded off against other things, such as price, weight, and size? No! That's not true! That's impossible!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s slow for a wide zoom. Sorry, but it’s still true. Lenses have gotten much better in even those five years. We expect long tele’s to be slow, and there have been a number of long f8 and even f11 models over time.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 18, 2021)

melgross said:


> It’s slow for a wide zoom. Sorry, but it’s still true.



f/5.6 is not slow for an ultra wide zoom. I'm not even a little bit sorry to say so.



melgross said:


> Lenses have gotten much better in even those five years. We expect long tele’s to be slow, and there have been a number of long f8 and even f11 models over time.



Lenses have gotten so much better in even those five years, the new RF 600mm long tele is three stops slower than the old EF 600mm long tele. Its the reverse - cameras have become so much better, some photographers can now settle on slower lenses.

Ultra wide zooms have improved a lot over the last 20 years, from not having any that start at 12mm, to having one that starts at 11mm and is f/4. But nothing has improved in the last five years - the Sigma 12-24mm f/4, released at 2016, isn't any faster than the Canon 11-24mm f/4 released in 2015.

But by all means, buy the Laowa 12mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. Whatever does the job for you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2021)

Nikon have the very good Z 14-24 f2.8, the Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 is an excellent lens too. An aperture of f5.6 is two full stops slower than f2.8, that's the difference between 3200 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use almost any modern camera at 3200 by 12800 I'm generally not happy.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Nikon have the very good Z 14-24 f2.8, the Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 is an excellent lens too.



Canon has a very good RF 28-70mm f/2 zoom. Neither is as wide as a 12-24mm zoom.



privatebydesign said:


> An aperture of f5.6 is two full stops slower than f2.8, that's the difference between 3200 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use almost any modern camera at 3200 by 12800 I'm generally not happy.



Its also five full stops slower than f/1.0, that's the difference between 400 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use just about any camera at 400 iso over 12800. Problem is, if I want a zoom lens wider than 14mm, there isn't any faster than f/4.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon has a very good RF 28-70mm f/2 zoom. Neither is as wide as a 12-24mm zoom.
> 
> 
> 
> Its also five full stops slower than f/1.0, that's the difference between 400 iso and 12800 iso, I'd happily use just about any camera at 400 iso over 12800. Problem is, if I want a zoom lens wider than 14mm, there isn't any faster than f/4.


The 14-24 f2.8 and 15-35 f2.8 are both unltra-wide zooms, you said there weren’t any new fast ultra-wide zooms, that is factually incorrect. That 14mm might not be wide enough for you wasn’t a comment I was replying to, you even mentioned the Sigma 14-24 f2.8!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The 14-24 f2.8 and 15-35 f2.8 are both unltra-wide zooms, you said there weren’t any new fast ultra-wide zooms, that is factually incorrect. That 14mm might not be wide enough for you wasn’t a comment I was replying to, you even mentioned the Sigma 14-24 f2.8!



Oh, I didn't bother repeating the "wider than 14mm", like the one this thread is about, yet again? Sorry...


----------

