Venus Optics launches Laowa 15mm F4, the world&#39;s widest macro lens

From $475 depending on mount.

Not sure for how long these below will last:
5% discount with promocode: SGMACRO
Free shipping WorldWide.

Jun 27, 2015permalink

driftnomore

made in china...if you buy these lenses ,you are helping CHINA to bully more on small countries ,like my country Philippines.CHINA, a country that doesnt spend a single penny on R & D,but makes money by copying and hacking! THINK ABOUT IT,FOLKS !

Jun 25, 2015permalink

lol

Jun 25, 2015permalink

Godszoomlens

This website is for all of photography and camera lovers, I don't think it's suitable to post such a biased political view. I hope the editor can deal with it wisely. Thanks.

Jun 26, 2015permalink

So, where are your stuff made then, do you think?
Mobile
Camera
Lences
TV
etc
?

Jun 26, 2015permalink

driftnomore

i am saying this because i avoid stuffs that are made in china....my cameras are PENTAX and NIKONS..my lenses are from vietnam and thailand..my tv's dude were made in japan.my mobile cams were made in korea and taiwan....my etc's are not made in china.i don't want to waste my money in cheap stuff,dude ...i am not a cheapo guy ,like you! check your spelling ,dude.your language is a cheapo,too or you are just dumb in school.,,clean your lenses first,they are very dusty!

Jun 27, 2015permalink

LOL, man, you need to chill down.
Then, english is not my first language so sorry about spelling and grammar.
My lenses are clean and not cheap at all.
Most of my stuff comes from about the same countries as yours and some from mainland China and I'm so far happy with most of what I own.

Jun 28, 2015permalink

asameng

not sure if srs or just a massive dumbass.

Jun 29, 2015permalink

@asameng: Who, me? srs?

Jun 29, 2015permalink

PaulRacecar

My iPhone was made in China.

Jul 4, 2015permalink

Dastardly Donnie

I seriously doubt there are no items in your home that were not 'Made in China'; it's so very unlikely. American companies could manufacture here in the USA, however, imagine the COST of those items due to the WAGES. In any event if one wants this lens accepting the country of origin is unavoidable. One final thought: They DEVELOPED THE LENS - it is not a 'copy / knockoff' of anyone else.

Nov 7, 2015permalink

the company has confirmed in mail, that there is indeed a 14 blade aperture, not 6 and that they are taking down the product photo nr. 3
all clear for ordering from my side :D

Jun 25, 2015permalink

davelok

I don't know how useful this lens might be for macro, but with the ultra wide angle, it does make for interesting close ups.

Especially of cats, frogs and toadstools.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

lacikuss

My Sigma 15mm Fisheye lens focuses as close as 5 cm from the front element, and is f/2.8

Jun 24, 2015permalink

My Nikkor 10.5 does 3cm in front of the lens. But it is nowhere near 1:1 magnification there. Certain Canon wideangles do get around 1:1 on extension tubes, so they could be sold as macro lenses with a different housing with a longer helicoid. But I guess the max magnification is set to maintain certain image quality standards or housing production issues.

Jun 28, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

did I read this right " + - shift at normal distances" ????

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Yes. According to this DPR article, the lens has a perspective control function although it can be done through PP.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

APS-C only they say :-(

Jun 25, 2015permalink

Denis of Whidbey Island

To shift on FF would require a larger image circle. I know little about optics design, but understand that it's more challenging to achieve a larger image circle (sensor coverage) at short focal lengths.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

in Pro work unless you stitch via 17mm TS Canon you will eventually need a
12mm lens ( or now 11mm Canon ) when shooting in tight places ... a 15 shift would have been a big step from 17. Lets hope the A7r II works with the VC12 ... then all our prayers are finally answered.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

Fri13

1:1 reproduction ratio is the requirement for "Macro". But with this 15mm for 36x24mm sensor it would really require to be far more closer than 12cm from the front element, more like a 3-4cm maybe? But how if the front lens is already wider than the 36x24mm, how can you get it to be 1:1?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

toughluck

Why are you saying that 1:1 requires being closer than 12 centimeters? And why bring format into the discussion? At 12 cm, you're going to get a field measuring 36x24 onto a full frame sensor, or ~24x16 onto an APS-c sensor, all the way down to 4x3 mm field with a 1/3" sensor. getting 4x3 mm onto a 32x24 area of a full frame sensor would mean 8:1 reproduction ratio.
As for the second part, the answer is obvious: Not the entire scene diagonal needs to pass through the entire front element diameter to end up on the photo.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Ruy Penalva

See the specification at the website:

Min. focusing distance
(Subject to Sensor) 12 cm (no 1:1 affirmed)

Min. working distance

(Subject to Front Element) 0.47 cm (1:1)

So, it seems clear, that 1:1 ratio only at 0.47 cm distance (where comes the light from?) from the front element, and the 12 cm minimum focusing distance refer to sensor plane. Sensor plane to camera front thread + lens length + 0.47cm = 12cm? Probably!

Jun 24, 2015permalink

tkbslc

1:1 is an arbitrary magnification that isn't even a constant across all systems.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

toughluck

tkbslc: of course it's a constant. 1:1 means that the area in focus is the same size as your sensor.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

tkbslc

It's not a constant, it is a ratio. Which means the minimum focus area gets larger or smaller depending on the sensor size. If I'm shooting 1:1 on 4/3, I'm focusing on an area that is 1/4 the size of the smallest area that 1:1 represents on a FF camera. 1:1 might mean something as small as a blueberry on one camera and something as large as an apple on another.

So acting like 1:1 means macro and only 1:1 can be a bit misleading. A small point and shoot might be into macro territory at 1:8.

Jun 26, 2015*permalink

(unknown member)

Everyone plays fast and loose with the term "macro". It has a very specific meaning for a very specific set of capabilities in the optics world, but once marketing gets going, not so much. Many lenses tagged as macro over time didn't get to 1:1 - the medium format macro lenses for Bronica, legacy Hasselblad, those kinds of bodies, tended to need tubes to get to 1:1 and sometimes not even then. Fuji's macro lens only gets to .5X without tubes.

I used to have a 19mm macro-nikkor - made for a nikon multiphot, and adapted to bellows. Fun perspectives, but with bellows involved, not very easy to work with. This lens may go on my list, looking at the images they've offered here, it's in line with what I used to try to do (only sometimes successfully) with that old Nikkor.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

AluKd

If close focus is 12cm from the front element, it won't do anything close to 1:1.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

No, but it's 4,7mm from the front element ;-)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Pandimonium

It must be a-symmetric and may have enormous focus breathing making it not 15mm but 20mm or more at 1:1.

Jun 24, 2015*permalink

Marty4650

Would you buy a lens from a company that can't get their website to work?

Just sayin'.... this is pretty basic marketing. You issue a press release with a website listed. Then the website doesn't work. This doesn't bode well.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

samfan

It's a Chinese company. They often have awesome products for even more awesome prices but can't market for crap.

I already have that experience from portable audio (headphones and players). And now other Chinese companies of a similar caliber have been making lenses with the same approach.

So yes I would. Who cares for a web site if you get a fine lens for a low price?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

There various types of company website in China. The only possible way to judge the quality of a specific product from China is to take a look and play with it for a while. From the limited pictures shown here, I would say that it seems ok to me for the price.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Mark Banas

Well, Arca-Swiss doesn't even *have* a website. Would you buy their gear?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I'd still buy an Alpa, with the wooden handles but honestly, if Arca can't manage web page, probably not. As for the Chinese lens, I'd buy several, in the unlikely event there's some variation among them.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

WayneHuangPhoto

A bit off topic, but note that 'basic' or standard marketing practices aren't prevalent in most developing countries. We expect it in the U.S. (assuming you're American) and other developed countries with large private sectors. The Chinese didn't have much of an advertising industry until around the 80s when they started to shift their economy to more of a capitalist model. The U.S. has had decades to develop a history and traditions in advertising so it follows that U.S. consumers expect certain things and standards from a company that Chinese consumers do not. This is changing though.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Marty4650

Obviously, they are trying to sell something to people in the USA. And if they issue a press release with a link to a website, then that website should work.

These are the same Chinese that can hack into U.S. Government websites. You just can't convince me that someone in China can't write code for a website that works. And even if they can't..... how hard is it to hire someone in Korea, Malaysia, Singapore or Hong Kong to do it?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

sensibill

They don't need a website to make a product. 'Chinese hacking' has nothing to do with anything. Take a nap, have a beer and relax, man. Just because we omniscient 'Muricans don't know where their website is doesn't mean the parent company doesn't have one, somewhere.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Nothing wrong with their website. Maybe your connection was poor? Interesting lens.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Jun2

The website is working. May be not compatible with your system.

Jun 25, 2015*permalink

SteB

"These are the same Chinese that can hack into U.S. Government websites."

I hardly think that the same Chinese people engaged in hacking, manufacture macro lenses in their spare time. It's gross national stereotyping of the worst type.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

samfan

"These are the same Chinese that can hack into U.S. Government websites"

The most stupid comment of the month. Yep, those guys who make camera lenses, it's THE SAME GUYS who hack US web sites!

Jun 25, 2015permalink

nandbytes

"Sony Alpha, Sony FE" - by which I take it you guys mean Sony a-mount and Sony e-mount. There is no "Sony Alpha" mount as both a-mount and e-mount bodies are Sony Aplhas. There is also no FE mount that is just a lens designation (by Sony) for FF e-mount lenses (much like how they use 'DT' for APS-C a-mount lenses).

Jun 24, 2015*permalink

If I don't remember wrong:
There is an A as in Alpha" mount.
There is an older E mount that was sort of expanded to yet another mount called FE for newer Sony's cameras.
A has both FF and APS-c cameras.
E has only APS-C I think, can be totally wrong here.
EF has both FF and APS-c cameras.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

nandbytes

Sony have *2* mounts - a-mount and e-mount. Both mounts supports both APS-C and FF.

There is *no* such thing as Alpha mount and *no* such thing as FE mount.

Sony bought the a-mount from minolta and they branded their a-mount cameras to be called "Alpha".
Then they started e-mount mirrorless cameras under the name of 'nex'. They then decided change the name of 'Nex' e-mount cameras to be 'Alpha' cameras too.

So *currently* Sony 'Alpha' is their branding for their ILCs which includes *both* a-mount AND e-mount cameras.

'FE' is just a lens designation by Sony imply that a lens produces image circle large enough to cover a FF sensor (For example nikon used 'FX' and 'DX'). There is no such thing as FE mount. There is *only* e-mount (and a-mount)

confused yet?

Jun 24, 2015*permalink

Zeisschen

@ CekariYH

everthing you remember is wrong. But I think many people think it's like this.

@ nandbytes

everything you said is correct ;)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

antares103

The A mount likely stems from the fact the mount was the Alpha mount for Minolta, years before Konica and decades before SONY. Whether or not it is an official name for SONY, the mount has historically been known as the Alpha mount, and is probably ingrained in supply chain of some of the 3rd party mfgs (though not this one).

Jun 24, 2015permalink

You are correct, my bad.
Thought I could do it from memory, and I only have had Minolta and Sony with the same A-mount (well older Minolta mounts also) I got into deep water.
Thanks for the clarification :-)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Steve Balcombe

Looks like their web site has been slashdotted!

When the excitement dies down, I'm tempted to give one of these a try. I've always been a fan of close-perspective macro.

Jun 24, 2015*permalink

davelok

Ah, at last, someone who recalls that venerable, exciting phenomenon that was the nightmare of sysadmins.

These days, XKCD does it to websites, I think. Or to Wikipedia or something.

The nets aren't what they used to be.

j/k

Jun 25, 2015permalink

technotic

I hope the lens is better than their website. Stable it is not.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

rurikw

I was going to buy a Samyang 14mm for my M4/3 Kipon shift adapter. This costs approx same takes filters and weighs less. The Kipon gives 2x the amount of shift though. What do I do now?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

abortabort

And 2x the amount of light. Personally I am interested in this though for the ability to (easily) take filters.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

lapomattiabarambaniviendalmare

hmm, the aperture looks like 6 blades in their product photo
http://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-15mm-f4-wide-angle-1x-macro-lens/#

Jun 24, 2015permalink

pulsar123

Jul 13, 2015permalink

Anadrol

If this lens offers 1:1 magnification and a 180mm lens offers 1:1 too,
could someone explain me why their image would differ ?
Both lens should cast about the same information to the sensor because they are both 1:1 lenses.

Aside that the 15mm lens has a much higher depth of field.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

The lens prospective, as you may see in the pictures above, is completely different, let aside the distortion.
1:1 refers to the image enlargement, not to the information to the sensors.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

shutter insanity

The depth of field is the same. It is a common misconception that depth of field varies between lenses. As long as the same subject is the same size on the sensor, the DOF is the same. Since wide-angle lenses show more of the background, it just seems as if the DOF is less.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Steve Balcombe

They differ in exactly the same way as two non-macro lenses with different focal lengths. You can shoot a head-and-shoulders portrait with a 35 mm lens or a 200 mm lens - obviously you have to be much closer with the 35 mm lens so the perspective is different. This shows up in different perspective distortion (stretched corners in the wide angle shot; compression in the telephoto shot) and most noticeably in the backgrounds.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

J A C S

Interesting but I will be waiting for their fisheye telephoto lens.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Obviously, you'll never get it for the rest of your life. :)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Anyone been able to order one?
I,m just getting an error when putting it in the shoppingbasket :-/

Jun 24, 2015permalink

https://vimeo.com/130868730

After about 15 tries and a reboot of my computer I managed to order one for my a99. Will be much fun using this lens. Also my first all manual lens since the eighties.
Now, if the time just could fly by a tad :-)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

I think this concept of dual special-purposes for APS-C and FF (in this case, shift wide and macro ultrawide), is really smart. My primary ultrawide is currently a Sigma 8-16mm, which works great on my NEX-7 (APS-C) and works with fixably dark corners around 16mm on my A7II (FF) -- another dual-purpose lens. If one carries a spare body anyway, it's nice to have a FF + APS-C spare and get something special out of both....

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Aaron801

I don't shoot macro and don't have a FF camera but if I did this thing would surely be on my list. The perspective that it provides to my mind has a lot of creative possibilities. I really like these sample shots here that have the background as a more important element in the composition... I could see doing some macro that has just these kind of compositions... which to me would make it much different (and potentially more interesting) than most of the macro out there.

I'd also think that with that focal length, it'd be a lot easier to get deep depth of field, which is often an issue with macro. Then there's the price of the thing, which seems quite reasonable and the quality is good too, judging from these shots.

I'd think that it could double as a really wide regular lens too, no? I wonder how the IQ is for non-macro stuff?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Aaron801

Damn.... and it has shift capabilities... that's cool!

Jun 24, 2015permalink

futile32

FYI, I checked with Venus... the Sony FE mount will be slightly longer, so will be the same design with some extra distance added to push away from the mount. Basically a built in A-mount adapter.

Great that they are offering it as an option, but if you are already an A-mount/adapter user. Better to go with the A-mount option.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Greg VdB

Seems like an amazing piece of kit for the money. With manual aperture, macro, and tilt, this looks like it could be an instant classic for timelapse purposes! The f/4 maximum aperture limits it somewhat for astro(-timelapse) work, but with sensors getting ever better, this limitation isn't that great either. Very eager to see it's astigmatism performance in that sense... And flare against bright light. Anyway, from the "reviews" so far, to me this looks like a grown-up lensbaby.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

Here's a video from the company presumably made with this lens.

P.S. I'm not sure how they got the moon to be that big with a 15mm lens.

P.P.S. The snail was close enough to the camera lens to be on the verge of slime-ing it -- working distances are gonna be small at 1:1!

Jun 24, 2015permalink

aseancat

Question: how can you get to MFD 12cm distance of a live and awake snake?

Jun 24, 2015permalink

If you don't know, better shoot snails ;)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Ignat Solovey

Remote camera. I shot very much alive poisonous viper from roughly the same distance, hands hidden behind the camera. Although it was in a lab, not outdoors.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

During the winter. :)

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Ignat Solovey

@jsandjs exactly, but since that was at research lab, that damn viper was very much alive and awake, and even attacked camera.

Jun 25, 2015permalink

Stanchung

For shooting miniature sets i bet

Jun 24, 2015permalink

daddyo

What's that sound I hear?

That's the sound of the men, working on the ChangGeng...

Sorry, it's late, it's been a long day, and I couldn't help myself.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Looking at the photos, I think they consulted with Roger Corman on the design.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Giklab

Specs were switched - MFD is 12cm, it's 47mm from the front element! :D

Jun 23, 2015permalink

misolo

Seems to be 0.47cm, or 4.7mm.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Giklab

Correct, my bad!

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Fri13

Well that explains then it, that it is 47mm and so on possible for 1:1 ratio. With 12cm from the front lens it would be impossible. I thought the 12cm should be MFD.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Marcin 3M

Shift should work in macro distances with FF too. Image circle is much bigger atv1:1.

Jun 23, 2015permalink

DStudio

Are you sure Venus Optics isn't Indonesian?

I'm just going by the sample photos. ;-)

Jun 23, 2015permalink

makofoto

They must mean 1.6 cm to the front element to get 1:1 with that wide a lens!

Jun 23, 2015permalink

Lee Jay

The attraction of a wide angle macro lens escapes me. Every time I've ever wanted to do macro, I wanted longer focal lengths than practically any macro lens ever made.

So, I use my Kenko extension tube set with my 70-200. Even that doesn't really have enough working distance. Now, with a teleconverter and a crop body, then it feels about right.

So, my main macro lens has an equivalent focal length of 448mm.

Jun 23, 2015permalink

fmian

From looking at the samples, it would be good for when you want the environment in the shot as well as the small close up subject. All in focus.
As opposed to completely separating the subject from the background with your longer lenses.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Barry Pearson

I've tended to want longer macro lenses, because some of the things I want to photograph get spooked easily.

But when I bought a fisheye, I found uses for it that I wouldn't have thought of without have the lens to experiment with. I suspect it would be the same with this lens.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

pkvman13

Yes, the working distance is greater with the local focal length macros, but those shots are going to have a much flatter look as well. There's nothing wrong with that but I would argue that many macro subjects look better with a more natural perspective (a 60-100mm macro lens).

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Fri13

@Fmian

You get as much separation as with 100mm or 200mm f/4 macro would give with same subject magnification with this 15mm f/4.

Shorter focal length doesn't mean you get deeper depth of field automatically, only when the subject magnification is smaller you receive it.

I love to use 420mm for close ups with 0.3x magnification, 120mm for Macro (1:1 magnification) and 14mm with 0.12x magnification as I can get even smaller objects nicely covered. But to have a 1:1 on 15mm does sound interesting as you can cover the real environment of the subject, but still I find it niche as already I touch subject with front lens on UWA objectives if not being careful and it isn't so nice as controlling background is just too difficult.

Jun 24, 2015permalink

AngularJS

The site returns http 500... Hopefully the lenses are not as buggy as the web site.

Jun 23, 2015permalink

adrian1988

seems like the problem is fixed. I can access it now

Jun 24, 2015permalink

Lassoni

The cat pic looks ugly :(

Jun 23, 2015permalink

GinoSVK

My 10-18mm at 10mm (16eq) is "macro" lens to.

Jun 23, 2015permalink

apart from manual aperture and some barrel distortion, looks like a winner to me: "excellent image quality" "this lens a small chunk of solid metal"
http://sgmacro.blogspot.dk/2015/06/review-of-venus-optics-laowa-15mm-f4-11.html
another quick review: http://www.diyphotography.net/first-hands-on-review-of-the-venus-optics-laowa-15mm-f4-11-macro-lens/

Jun 23, 2015permalink

futile32

5% off Code on the first link too, thanks

Jun 23, 2015permalink

http://photorumors.com/2015/06/23/venus-optics-announces-the-laowa-15mm-f4-the-worlds-widest-11-macro-lens/

Admin, 12 cm must be the MFD, not the working distance from the front element. The latter is probably hardly positive ;)

Jun 23, 2015permalink

Antonio G

You're right as according to Photorumors minimum working distance is 0,47cm for macro 1:1 magnification, so 12 cm must be for normal shooting.

Jun 23, 2015permalink

Pandimonium

A Close focus distance of 0.47 cm would put the bugs in your camera behind the mirror. cf distance is 12cm and working distance is 0.47 cm (at 1:1).

According to this article: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
CF distance must be at least 4x the focal length (then you get 1:1). That would mean the cf distance would have to be 6cm (which is impossible since that would be inside de lens). So Venus Optics is at least violating some macro rule here.)

Jun 24, 2015*permalink

teddoman

Environmental macro?

Jun 23, 2015permalink