Just announced on socials. Autofocus on Sony and Nikon Z, Canon gets only manual. $699.

Designed for full-frame mirrorless cameras, the 12mm f/2.8 Lite Zero-D FF offers an ultra-wide 122° angle of view with virtually zero distortion.

Will we see a @Phil Rudin test soon? ;)

Now, this is exciting.

I wonder if one would need a dome with this lens?

33 minutes ago, hedonist222 said:

I wonder if one would need a dome with this lens?

Yes

Looks really interesting... minimum focus distance of only 14cm....

This is Laowa's second auto focus lens, both lenses designed for Nikon Z and Sony full frame cameras. Canon RF and Leica L are also supported in manual focus only. The AF lenses have five aperture blades and manual focus are available in 5 and 14 blades.

I reviewed Laowa's first AF lens, the 10mm F/2.8 in issue #138 using Marelux 140mm and 230mm dome ports. I expect the 12mm F/2.8 will have similar performance at least in the 230mm port which is most well suited to such a wide (122 degree) rectilinear lens.

To answer Sokrates question, yes this is a lens I intend to review but not sure how soon.

Laowa just updated its 12mm F2.8 Zero-D lens with autofocus . I wonder if this new lens can replace my good old 8-15 mm Nikon lens. I use the nikon lens only in 15 mm and I use an adapter for it. (I use Nokon Z7 2)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5867780953/laowa-updates-its-12mm-f2-8-zero-d-lens-with-autofocus-for-some-mounts

1 hour ago, Ido said:

Laowa just updated its 12mm F2.8 Zero-D lens with autofocus . I wonder if this new lens can replace my good old 8-15 mm Nikon lens. I use the nikon lens only in 15 mm and I use an adapter for it. (I use Nokon Z7 2)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5867780953/laowa-updates-its-12mm-f2-8-zero-d-lens-with-autofocus-for-some-mounts

It doesn't look like the hood is removable, which would be a problem in a dome port. And it's still rectilinear not fisheye. Perhaps it could be made to work, but I'm guessing it would need a larger dome port such as the 8.5".

23 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

It doesn't look like the hood is removable, which would be a problem in a dome port. And it's still rectilinear not fisheye. Perhaps it could be made to work, but I'm guessing it would need a larger dome port such as the 8.5".

The lens hood on both the Laowa 10mm and 12mm AF lenses are removable and small enough to be used in a dome port if you like. All rectilinear lenses work best in larger dome ports like 230mm if corner sharpness is your primary metric. I have used the Laowa 10mm in a 140mm dome port with excellent center sharpness. At 12cm it will easily focus in both ports because they are fisheye. Not so much in a 180mm dome which is not fisheye.

Bottom line is that a 170/180 degree fisheyes are just not apples to apples compared to 130 & 122 degrees in rectilinear a better metric would br wet wind lenses that that are 130 degrees at 28mm on full frame.

3 hours ago, Ido said:

Laowa just updated its 12mm F2.8 Zero-D lens with autofocus . I wonder if this new lens can replace my good old 8-15 mm Nikon lens. I use the nikon lens only in 15 mm and I use an adapter for it. (I use Nokon Z7 2)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5867780953/laowa-updates-its-12mm-f2-8-zero-d-lens-with-autofocus-for-some-mounts

This is really comparing apples and oranges, a 12mm rectilinear lens lens is nowhere near as wide as a fisheye lens and doesn't have the fisheye barrel distortion which makes closeby objects in the centre of the frame pop from the background which appears to recede. The frame width is about 112° with the 12mm and 144° with the fisheye at 15mm. Using the Nikon adapter for an F mount lens on a Z camera is not a problem, it only acts as a spacer and doesn't impact image quality at all. Very wide rectilnear lenses also have an odd perspective effect with objects on the edge of the field seeming very large, this was discussed on the post about the Laowa 10mm lens.

This doesn't mean it's a bad lens - just has different characteristics to a fisheye. Fisheye lenses are popular UW for good reason.

This may be a good option for anything wrecks and caves. I hate 230mm idea for its travel limitations but now when I have 140mm available I wonder what would be the real difference in frames quality @Phil Rudin 140 vs 230 - any comps of that 10mm by any chance?

6 hours ago, RomiK said:

This may be a good option for anything wrecks and caves. I hate 230mm idea for its travel limitations but now when I have 140mm available I wonder what would be the real difference in frames quality @Phil Rudin 140 vs 230 - any comps of that 10mm by any chance?

There's some discussion of using the 140mm dome with the 10mm in the thread on the Laowa 10mm here:

If I recall correctly @DreiFish did some testing of the lens as well, might have been in a 180mm dome.

The 10mm needs a fisheye type port so 140 or 230 not 170/180. I am traveling so you can fine two or three photos with each port on my Instagram page, view the text for each photo to fine the 10mm shots.

Philrudinphotography

4 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

The 10mm needs a fisheye type port so 140 or 230 not 170/180. I am traveling so you can fine two or three photos with each port on my Instagram page, view the text for each photo to fine the 10mm shots.

Philrudinphotography

Thanks, I've tried but IG no good search and quality 🤯... It may be a good subject for next UWPmag perhaps... I bet most photographers hate to travel with 230 but if 140 would be good comparable for these ultra wide lenses you may get some more sales :-) Myself I will do some pool pics of Sony 14/1.8 in 140 but I don't have 230 to compare it with... Anyway safe travels and if the time would allow it would be great to post some higher res comps here.

Will most likely demand a large dome. The 122 degrees is pretty close to the wet lenses 130, so that would be a good comparison.