Didn't he already do a top 10 sharpest macro lenses a while back? If I recall correctly it was a video containing lenses from all mounts but the best macro was the Laowa 100mm f2.8 which is available for Sony FE (I own it myself as well). But Laowa released a new 90mm f2.8 which is significantly smaller and just as sharp as the 100mm was originally intended for DSLR's instead of mirrorless

Laowa 90mm and you're all set

Sigma 105mm f2,8 DG DN

I also love the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 but like yourself, wish it was just a tad sharper. I ended up replacing it with the Sony 14mm GM, but as a real estate shooter, I live at f8, so this 7Artisans caught my attention. If you do pick it up, please let me know how you get on with it, and how it compares to the Voigtlander!

The Irix will be a better lens in every sense, except weight.

On a lens like this, autofocus doesn't make much of a difference usually anyways, at least for landscape photography. Just mark with a sharpie or something where in the focus range is good for infinity, and another line if you want to do some focus stacking, and you basically won't ever have to focus it manually anyways...

review result shows 7artisans is optically better but canon is af which I prefer.

@@kevc.2958 Thank you!

It'll be a 22.5mm equivalent on APS-C cameras, you're better off looking for a dedicated APS-C lens which'll be lighter/cheaper/smaller. The Laowa 10mm f4 is about the same price AFAIK and it'll give you a 15mm equivalent FoV, same as what you're seeing in Chris' video.

@@TheSC20k thank you !

It's much sharper than the RF16mm. Do this on your home computer, go to KZfaq, and open two pages from Christopher Frost's reviews, one for the 7artisans 15mm and one for the Canon RF 16mm, then go to the part of the video where he tests center sharpness and pause the video on both pages. Then review the pages back and forth and you'll be blown away at how much sharper the 7artisans lens is.

you just can crop it.. 3mm isnt hard things to crop and disturb the composition

Laowa have a great 15mm F4, shift, 1:1 Macro lens. By functionality this 7 artisans not even close.

If you mean Sigma 17mm f4, yes it is!

...what? Correction profiles exist independently of the camera and any software like lightroom can apply them, it has nothing to do with camera software updates. The camera can bake them into jpegs if so desired and you can enable or disable previewing them in the viewfinder - Sony lens profiles are the only ones baked into the RAW files if opened in lightroom (they can be disabled in fx capture one) and a lot of their lenses like the 90mm macro have comparatively high CA without the baked in profile. Otherwise, the RAW files with any third party lens is unaffected and you can choose to apply them in post or not. Software updates in no way affect this. Of all manufacturers, canon relies the most heavily on correction profiles for all their newer wide angle lenses (the new 14mm f4 and 15mm f2.8 zooms have absurd amounts of barrel distortion without software correction) and sony has huge amounts of vignetting on fx their 20mm 1.8. Distortion is not a size issue either - Laowa is currently probably the manufacturer with the best wide angle distortion correction available, yet their wide angle lenses are very small (and yet they produce the widest rectilinear lens in existence, the 9mm f5.6) Samyang also corrects distortion very well in lens without correction and has similar vignette levels to Sony lenses of the same size. Tokinas 20mm has less distortion than Sony's or Sigmas. Not only is your statement wrong when it comes to this idea that updates will somehow make lenses worse over time because the lens profiles will ??magically vanish from software all over the world??, but thinking this affects third parties more than first parties (especially canon, lol) is completely removed from reality. Go look at the new 14mm zoom from Canon, dustinabbott has a nice review, and tell me that is a well corrected lens without (in-camera)!software assistance.

@@Whatsgoodmydude2222 I was not reading it as a critique of Sony. My point was that the issue you describe applies to expensive, modern, high tier Glass made by Canon and Sony just as much. Again, before responding, just take a minute and check the distortion on the Canon 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (fx on dustinabbott) or the Sony 20-70mm F4 G (fx on the-digital-picture or lenstip). Both of these lenses have enormous, complex distortion at the wide end to such a degree that without software correction, they will not even cover the full frame image circle that these lenses were made for. These lenses, in my region, cost 1700€ and 1600€. They are not budget lenses. You will also find extreme distortion on the small primes sony produces like the 24mm F2.8G lens, which is in the same price segment as the Sigma I-Series (but have slower apertures). The Samyang 24mm 1.8 does not have this issue meanwhile, and is cheaper, faster, and barely bigger. Many third party manufacturers on the flip side, do not rely solely on software distortion correction to fully correct their issues. Laowa, Tokina and Samyang come to mind. All corrections can be applied independently of the camera body and are not baked into the RAW files normally (except for Sony lenses specifically, where Sony will try to bake the correction even into the RAW file - Sony sometimes corrects CA this way via software instead of doing so via extra elements). This is a critique of Sony, coming from me.

@@Whatsgoodmydude2222 I agree they should be, but , and I've also made this point before, you are wrong about camera firmware affecting this issue in any way. The lens profile is usually not stored in the camera for third partiee but on a chip on the lens. It is also not only available in the lens, but available in any software suite like adobe. Lens profiles have been around for many years on DSLR systems. I can still, without issue, use lens and camera software correction profiles from Samsung NX, a system which has ceased existing years ago. Please explain these "other issues" and from which experiences or coding insights these conclusions are drawn from. Because using your logic, all lenses could lose both aperture control and auto- and manual focus on mirrorless at any moment, as all of these are software controlled via the camera. Moreso than any lens profile.

@@Whatsgoodmydude2222 I don't, I have no idea where you are infering this from - I simply think it's important that if you have a reasonable position, especially one I agree with, like "Distortions should be optically corrected, not software corrected" that it's not diluted by various, easily disproven claims or claims that have no empirical basis. Statements such as (shortened) "lens profiles could suddenly become broken by camera firmware upgrades" or "third party manufacturers rely on this more than first party" or "lens profiles may cause other software issues after camera firmware updates" The weird ad hominem about my ego is completely unnecessary and just does not lend credence to your, fundamentally reasonable, position.

Why 82mm? Just curious

f/2 would make this one expensive and gigantic lens. A little much to expect from a budget lens...

It's not a fisheye lens.

You can search anywhere and you wont find many cheap good 16mm-ish manual focal length at F4 for fullframe since this dedicated to fullframe user not apsc.

@@yoginwidhi6676 hold your horses! I did say APS-C and didn't even mention full frame. But rest assured, I've seen some listings of Viltrox releasing an AF 16mm f/1.8 full-frame as early as next month. Hopefully it's as good as their other lenses, and won't be too costly.

well, testing for LoCA is tough to do with that long minimum focus distance and any ACA is revealed in the resolution test chart.

You do realize the price of the second hand cheap manual lenses also drops right? And they don't have a bunch of electronics that fails and so lasts virtually forever...

agree, I'd consider that lens if it's at least 150 cheaper than the canon

I can't remember the Nikon lens giving much of a sunstar, which this lens really exceeds at. So that's a plus I guess.

@@PiTdeLyX not worth this price. I paid 300 for a viltrox 24 1.8 with auto-focus, a laowa 28 1.2 costs 560 and they are charging all this for an f4? They are over their head. Not to mention their inexistent support

@@carlosandreviana9448 You can't compare this lens to others that are twice the focal length... They aren't even in the same category. This performs spectacularly well compared to its competition in the right use cases. Especially considering the price.

🧐

Yeah, it’s spelled lens or lenses. Get a good desk dictionary. Avoid autocorrect.

@@bngr_bngr THank you, but I was just making a joke ;) I am confused because of German Linse, where the last e is quiet

it's a fully manual lens with no electrical communication with the camera, nothing needed from the camera manufacturer, just need to make it fit mechanically and canon can't do anything about it

@@tommihommi1 I'm pretty sure canon can sue them if they don't want them to use their mount.. They do have a patent for the physical mount so that's a pretty clear cut case. Then again it's a Chinese company so that usually doesn't work very well to begin with...