In the fourth and final part of my Portugal series this year, I would like to show you a few very wide-angle landscape photos 🌍 Now there follows a technical report - if you don't need it, just scroll to the pictures 😉
At the beginning of January, I had already reported here that I went out in the snowy landscape of the Rothaargebirge at the end of 2024 with the Laowa 10/2.8 for Nikon Z and was able to realise some tree details that I really liked.
At the time, however, I found it difficult to do this with classic landscape scenery. The image effect, especially the distortion, was a bit too extreme for me, which I noticed especially with the trees at the edges of the image. And we're not even talking about the very edges here. That's why I'd chalked the Laowa up more to a ‘gimmick’ for a few extreme details and didn't really take it seriously for classic landscape scenes.
However, I was wrong about that. Contrary to expectations, I have been able to use it very well in Portugal over the last few weeks. Seascape photography is simply not comparable to photographing mountain landscapes with trees; distorted elements/scales are less important here and sometimes even have a very dynamic effect. As I have already been to most of the locations several times, it was really fun to be able to realise completely different perspectives. I would like to take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages.
Why such a 10mm UWW?
In landscape photography, it has always been possible to create wide panoramas using normal ultra-wide-angle lenses. Of course, with my Nikon Z14-24 I could simply pan via nodal and stitch them later. From a purely technical point of view, this produces better results (edge sharpness, resolution, etc.).
However, this does not correspond to my photography at all. I want to be able to immediately recognise the exact composition as it will look in the end with a glance through the viewfinder and not have to roughly imagine it.
That's why I also celebrate the electronic viewfinder, set the white balance, for example, both in terms of temperature and colour tone on location and also consistently use grey gradient filters, which are not required from a purely technical point of view and can also have disadvantages.
But I love the moment when the image appears on the display after a few seconds of exposure and that wow effect is there on the spot. For me, this is by far the most beautiful moment in the entire, long chain of the photo process - between researching, planning, travelling, scouting, photographing, saving, editing and sometimes also selling - even in these beautiful places.
So here is my conclusion after a few weeks of use:
What I liked about the lens:
-
Image angle and image effect: even if it is only 4mm focal length, the image effect is enormously different compared to my ‘standard UWW’ Z14-24. You can ask yourselves in
the following pictures what the pictures would look like with 14 instead of 10mm - in most of the pictures, important picture elements would simply be cropped and the leading line would be
much shorter. Often I didn't even use the lens because of a main motif, but because the sky and a beautiful cloud structure looked much better
-
Distortion: impressively low. Most of the 14 and 15mm lenses I've used so far have more distortion than this 10mm lens. Great engineering! It's also absolutely relevant
because, for example, with distortion from 3% upwards, too much focal length is lost after correction for my taste. In addition, image elements that I have precisely positioned in the outer
corners during the shoot ‘shift’. Some lens are therefore only nominally in possession of 14 or 15mm, but not effectively in the later image, after the distortion has been calculated out.
This one is probably very close to a real 10mm 👍The distortion will be in the range of 1.5-2% and that is remarkable
-
Image sharpness and resolution: this is quiet good overall, after thinking about it a bit, I'll include it in the advantages. I've used a lot of UWA and knowing well the
weaknesses of such lenses, I just feared a lot more problems at 10mm. However, the centre is somewhere between good and very good, towards the edges it is solid (also good with a little
post-processing) and at the very edges there is a clear drop in sharpness. However, acceptable from my point of view, I don't need to crop anything here, as I did with my Nikkor 16-35/4
back then, for example. You also have to bear this in mind:: strongly stretched elements at the extreme edges can appear blurred more quickly. However, stretch is not yet blurring. I have
included a section of an ‘example corner’ in image no. 14 below so that you can get a feel for it.
The edge sharpness cannot be compared with a Z14-24. Anyone who expects this just because it is a fixed focal length will be disappointed in my opinion. I can't comment on the performance at open aperture yet, I haven't done any night photography with it yet...
-
Size and weight: small and light (420g), great! I can take it with me in addition to the Z14-24 without it weighing too much, also in terms of space in my bagpack. This is
also absolutely crucial for me when deciding whether to keep it, as it will never be my main lens for landscape photography....
-
Autofocus: ok, I don't necessarily need it for landscape photography, and at this focal length the focal plane already extends to just under half a metre even at f8. But the
autofocus works really well. If I am correctly informed, this is missing in the Canon version, and the EXIFs are also not transferred here, but this is the case with Nikon 👍
- Backlight conditions: I'm actually the ‘wrong reviewer’ here - anyone who knows my pictures knows that I usually only use very soft (often indirect) light, see also the example pictures below. That's why the typical backlight problems rarely occur with me. However, I have also used lenses in the past (e.g. the Irix 15/2.4), where even in the softest backlighting severe problems occurred. My Z14-24 is also quite challenging in this respect. Compared to this, I can say that I couldn't identify any particular problems with the Laowa. Incidentally, I haven't produced any sun stars in the last few weeks, so I can't say much about this.
What I didn't like (yet):
-
Limited filter compatibility - for me this is currently still the biggest disadvantage - according to my research before travelling (December) there was no vignetting-free
filter holder for this lens. Not surprising at 10mm. Two slots would be enough for me, as with the 14-24 holder from Nisi. I had now solved it by using an ND8 screw-in filter and tended to
use HDR a little more often. At least that works with a 77 mm thread, which is a plus and is not to be taken for granted with such an angle of view.
I don't shoot in hard light anyway and I'm not a fan of long exposures lasting several minutes. The ND8 was completely vignetting-free, which I think is very good at 10mm. Above all, I would still like to have a holder - at least one slot to be able to use my 150mm filter, I often do without the polarizer for Seascapes anyway. Perhaps a solution from the 3D printer will be needed here, I'll look into that in the spring....
-
Vignetting: yes, of course, it can be eliminated. But it really is very strong. Depending on the lighting conditions, an enormously strong brightening at the edges is
necessary, which is not without side effects. Above all, it involves more effort in development. Less vignetting would therefore be desirable.
Incidentally, the problem would be too big in my eyes if I had to compensate for all the vignetting every time - but I like a certain amount of vignetting in my landscape pictures and usually never have to compensate for the entire value. For example, in pictures no. 3, 6, 8, 13, 17 and 18, I have hardly removed the vignetting and think it looks very good as it is.
- Chromatic aberrations: these are also strong - the usual editing in Lightroom is not enough to remove them completely. In the images below, for example, there are two photos where I would have to correct them manually beforehand in the larger print. All in all, this is ‘only’ a matter of reworking, unlike the vignetting without any significant side effects
My conclusion:
All in all, the trip made me realise that I definitely want to continue using 10mm on full-frame (non-fisheye) for landscape photography and that I personally really enjoy it. Take a
critical look at my 18 sample images yourself. I personally like the „style“, even with (and sometimes even because of) the naturally strong edge look.
Personally, I think it's debatable whether the „stretch“ of the archway in image no. 5 looks too unnatural, but in the other 17 images I personally don't mind at all in this respect - in my eyes, the lens therefore works well for most Seascapes. As soon as trees come into play, this is often not the case for me, but everyone has to judge that for themselves.
I'm definitely looking forward to using the lens in the caves in Iceland or on the large and very close mountains in northern Norway in the coming months. Unfortunately, I only really realised this in the second week of my trip to Portugal 😅
In my eyes, it makes sense to use it where you have large and/or steeply rising picture elements or where you can get very close to high picture elements. In many local areas, in classic moorland landscapes such as the High Fens, for example, I can hardly think of a landscape perspective (excluding tree details) where this is really necessary. But in many ‘epic’ spots it is very interesting in my opinion.
It's small, light, sufficiently sharp and has hardly any distortion at 10mm, which is just great. So you can always capture completely different perspectives. For me a ‘nobrainer’, which I now always carry in my bagpack. Of course, I'd prefer to have it natively from Nikon, but for now I'm happy that I can now cover this focal length range at all.
Enough chatter, now I hope you enjoy the pictures 😉
Best regards,
Thomas
I hope you enjoyed the series…
Many greetings,
Thomas