Venus Optics releases Canon RF, Nikon Z mount version of its Laowa 100mm F2.8 2X APO Macro lens

I find it pretty easy to turn a ring

Apr 23, 2020permalink

Wilky

"I find it pretty easy to turn a ring"

And during that action, you lose focus — it's just guesswork at F8 and below, even with focus peaking. An automatic diaphragm makes it so much easier to nail the shot with a moving subject, such as an insect.

Apr 23, 2020*permalink

JensR

Ranger Danger - if you find it easy to turn an aperture ring while keeping the eyes of a spider in focus as the branch or blossom sways even mildly in the wind, then kudos to you.

Apr 23, 2020permalink

@JensR to be honest I've never come across a situation where I need to change aperture shooting macro mid shoot. It tends to be in controlled lighting indoors or stable lighting outdoors. But in any case if I wanted to adjust light I'd change the ISO rather than change the aperture, which is a button operation any way. I set my aperture at the beginning of shooting and leave it. That said if my camera is handheld my left hand is already on the lens barrel anyway and adjusting focus or aperture is easy enough.

Apr 23, 2020permalink

JensR

I don't think I made the problem clear.
In the field, you need to have the lens wide open to see anything, then for the photo you need to have it stopped down to get any sort of depth of field. If the lens doesn't stop down automatically, you will ruin focus by turning the ring.
This isn't about adjusting which aperture you'd like the photo to be taken at, this is about focusing with a wide open lens and taking the photo at the working aperture. On a tripod, in the studio, sure, doesn't matter, but handheld with bugs in the field, or even monopod, forget it.

Apr 24, 2020permalink

S_Connor

Congratulations, you added an extension tube to your existing lens! Next level, design a native mirrorless lens with two out of three options:
- autofocus macro lens
- tilt-lens macro
- optical image stabilized macro lens

Apr 21, 2020permalink

juntoalmar

This is very interesting indeed. I will probably wait to see that macro in Nikon's Z lens roadmap and assess if the difference in price & quality makes sense.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

In terms of optical resolution you probably won't notice any difference between the Laowa and an expensive macro from Canon, Nikon or Sony, as macros are among the easiest lenses to design.

What you gain with OEM lenses is build quality, reduced flare, and AF (the Laowa is manual focus only). Also, if using adapted F-mount lenses on your Z mount camera, you'll also gain OIS/VR, which in conjunction with IBIS will reduce camera shake.

I have no experience of this Laowa optic, but you should also be aware that some non-OEM lenses (e.g. 150mm & 180mm Sigma macros) under-expose by about 1 stop at all distances, compared with equivalent focal length OEM lenses.

Apr 21, 2020*permalink

juntoalmar

Thanks! And, what about reverse rings? It seems like a good alternative. Do they have any caveat to know?

Apr 21, 2020permalink

Using reversing rings involves a lot of trial and error. The way to get the highest magnification is to use a reversed wide-angle, around 35mm, mounted in reverse direct to the camera. It's also possible to mount a reversed lens on the front of a telephoto.

So a lot of experimentation is needed to get a combination that provides the right magnification in combination with a decent working distance.

The biggest issue with reversing rings is focusing and aperture control. Most of the time both will have to be done manually, but there are a few set-ups where you can connect a cable and adaptor to the rear of the lens (which is now at the front!) and retain auto control.

With some brands the lens stops down to minimum aperture when it's reversed, making it very difficult to see the image in the viewfinder. Other brands open to maximum aperture when reversed. Either way you'll have to open to a wide aperture to compose and focus, and then stop down to the taking aperture.

Apr 21, 2020*permalink

continued....

Depth of field is virtually non-existent at high magnifications, so you'll either need to stop down to F22, or focus-stack a sequence of images shot at wider apertures. Again, lots of experimentation involved.

Lastly, you'll have to use a tripod to keep the rig steady, and a focusing-rail to rack the camera back and forth to bring the subject into focus. You'll have to use flash, and it's highly advisable to shoot in live view on the rear monitor, or better still view remotely via a tablet or phone, to avoid accidentally nudging the camera and knocking everything out of focus.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

juntoalmar

Thanks a lot for sharing your experience! It seems definitely more challenging, but it's worth trying, even if only for the fun of it.

Apr 22, 2020permalink

@entoman maybe you're not familiar with Laowa but their build quality run rings around most OEM products, they feel on par with Leica lenses. As far as the flare, this particular lens matches of beats most OEM products in its class, refer to the many online reviews. Brad statement about quality of OEM vs non OEM are dumb as both have varying degrees of quality though their ranges.... but then again you're someone who has never engineered or built lens and making claims about certain ones being 'easy to make' lol oh and F-stops are not a measurement of light, OEM or not, which is why the cine industry uses T stops which are a measurement of light ;)

Apr 23, 2020permalink

RangerDanger - My comment about macro lenses being easier to make than most other types, is based on numerous comments I've read in reviews, so maybe all the reviewers are wrong?

My comment about build quality was not targeted at Laowa but was a generalisation and not at all "dumb". The vast majority of independent lenses are inferior in build quality to OEM, based on my own experiences with Sigma and Tamron, and on comments and reviews I've read about Samyang, Tokina etc. There are a few exceptions of course, such as Zeiss and Signa Art, but these are in an entirely different price range to Laowa.

Your comment about T stops is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that the lenses I mentioned under-expose by about one stop compared with equivalent lenses of other brands, when using TTL metering on various Canon DSLRs, and is backed up by similar experiences from others.

Apr 23, 2020*permalink

Most aftermarket lenses don't under expose by a stop tho.... it's pretty much the dumbest claim you've made.

Apr 23, 2020permalink

RangerDanger - I'll quote you actual examples. This phenomenon has occurred in two Sigma 150mm macro lenses that I've owned, and in Sigma 150mm and Sigma 180mm macro lenses belonging to friends and colleagues. It is a well known issue so by no means a "dumb" claim.

I don't know whether the fault occurs when these lenses are mounted on Nikon etc bodies but it does occur with several different models of Canon bodies. It is probably caused by Sigma being unable to correctly reverse engineer for the Canon mount protocol at the time these lenses were designed.

As already stated this applies only to these lenses, and NOT to OEM lenses. When Canon macro lenses are used, exposures are correct. I've never claimed that it is a general fault of "most aftermarket lenses", which it quite obviously is not.

Please read posts properly before making your own "dumb" comments which are based on opinion, and not on fact.
Thank you :-)

Apr 24, 2020*permalink

So the lens doesn't actually under expose by a stop at all but rather the aperture controller and camera to not communicate properly on very specific combinations of camera and lens... got it ... you seem to have pretty opinion laden statements still there about build quality etc dude so I'll stand by my dumb statement comments ;)

May 10, 2020permalink

Ranger Danger - "Dude", yes I do have strong opinions about the build quality of Sigma macro lenses.

Quite obviously the fact that the 150mm macro underexposes on several Canon camera bodies owned my myself or by friends is indicative of a failure by Sigma to correctly analyse the aperture control protocol.

The fault is NOT confined to "very specific combinations of camera and lens" - it certainly happens with 40D, 50D, 7DMkii, 5DMkiii, 5DMKiv and 5DS for starters.

Why is it that people like you get so ridiculously defensive when an issue concerning a product is highlighted? It is to the benefit of everyone, including the manufacturer, to bring such matters to public attention.

Do you not understand that most, if not *all* firmware updates come about a result of users publicising various bugs or design faults?

It's precisely *because* of this sort of issue, that Sigma and Tamron now provide a means to update the firmware on their more recent lenses.

May 10, 2020*permalink

TheSeer

I understand this is a macro lens foremost, but i have noticed they are incredibly hard to focus at near infinity due to the short throw on the focus rings because the focus ring movement is longer at close distances.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/depth_of_field_calculator.do

Yes that's true, if you need to shoot wide apertures and distant subjects a macro isn't the best choice.

But depth of field with a 100mm lens at F5.6, when focused at 60m, extends from 30m to infinity (on full frame), so for most shots there is plenty of margin for error.

60m in the above example is the "hyperfocal distance". i.e the setting that provides maximum depth of field.

To calculate the "hyperfocal distance" for any other aperture or focal length, there is an on-line calculator here:

Alternatively there are many similar calculators available as apps for smartphones.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

all reviews in Internet shows its an best macro lens on market, also with 2:1 macro... but its not cheap in fact, unfortunately...

Apr 21, 2020permalink

montventoux

not cheap?? it's one of the cheapest high-quality macro lenses you can get.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

450 USD is not cheap, its an manual lens, yeah, mechanically its also made on highest standard, as people said, but 450 USD is not cheap, especially now... 300 USD will be really good price for it.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

kkoba

"Not cheap" compared to what? If there isn't a cheaper option that can do the same thing, I'd say it's cheap.

Apr 22, 2020permalink

Not cheap in general. I understand you want to buy lenses expensive, or even more expensive, here are many people, who very like just expensive lenses. 450 USD for them is nothing, cheap.

Apr 22, 2020permalink

Wilky

In terms of image quality it gives all of the best, expensive macro lenses a run for the money — so, in that sense, it's cheap.

Apr 23, 2020permalink

in terms of image quality there is no question, I also said its a best on market.

Apr 23, 2020permalink

Albert Valentino

The comparison picture of the lenses shows a much shorter version of the Laowa than shown above, so I assume the shorter version os an older version. It therefore looks like to make this a 2:1 macro they extended the distance from the sensor, similar to slapping on a extension tube to get higher mag. That raises the question, did they increase the mag potential at the expense of infinity focus. This is an important point since that limits makes this a dedicated macro and which excludes infinity focus and possibly limits portrait potential

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Aoi Usagi

The lens in the comparison picture is most likely for a DSLR with a longer flange distance (looks like Nikon F mount), as opposed to the short flange distance of a mirrorless camera.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

tassienick

Pretty sure the new version is essentially the old dSLR version, ported out to make up for the shorter flange distance on mirrorless mounts.

Apr 21, 2020permalink

Wilky

"did they increase the mag potential at the expense of infinity focus"?

No, it focuses to infinity - unlike, for example, the MPE-65. The focusing potential, whether DSLR or mirrorless version, remains the same and, as others have written, the physical length just accounts for flange distance variation with different mounts.

Apr 23, 2020*permalink

It would be very helpful if reviews and spec lists told us what the distance from the front of the lens (without hood) to the subject was, at 1:4, 1:2, 1:1 and 2X reproduction scales.

This has a profound effect on how closely a nervous living subject can be approached without scaring it off, and greatly impacts on lighting a subject without the lens casting a shadow on it.

dpr concentrates on reviewing cameras (quite understandable!), but instead of just quoting manufacturers advertising, it would do us all a great service if more lenses of all types were actually reviewed, informing us of issues such as focus breathing, field of view at MFD, and other details that affect actual usage.

Apr 20, 2020*permalink

Halftrack

In EF mount, the minimum focal distance at maximum magnification is 78mm or 3.1 inches from the front of the lens to the subject. It's a constant-length lens, 125mm long, with a minimum focal distance of 247mm from the camera focal plane, and EF mount has a 44mm flange distance.

It appears to be slightly different for E mount (155mm lens and an 18mm flange distance, same 247mm minimum focal distance). Not totally sure why that would be, or if someone somewhere has a number wrong that's getting reproduced across the internet.

Either way, it looks like the working distance for this lens at max magnification is three-ish inches. Not bad for a 2x?

I don't feel like figuring out the math for 1x magnification, but it should be fairly simple for someone who wants to take the time. I don't know why lens reviewers (even the more technical ones) never seem to bother doing this, I certainly would if it were *my* job. Like you said, this is critical information for macro shooters!

Apr 21, 2020permalink

Halftrack - Now *THAT* is exactly the sort of very useful information I'd expect to see, but never see, in lens reviews 😁

If reviewers incorporated that sort of data in comparative charts, it would make choosing macro lenses a great deal easier!

Apr 21, 2020*permalink

Halftrack

It was so simple to figure out, I did it while brushing my teeth this morning. That's the kind of hard-hitting journalism that other outlets can't provide!

Apr 21, 2020permalink

matsonfamily

is the one that has $449 under the photo the EF mount, and the others with the huge rear tube (maybe 50mm long?) the ones for mirrorless mounts?

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Either the Canon EF or the Nikon F version. The MILC version with the long rear tube is shown at the top of the page.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

matsonfamily

quite a long lens on mirrorless

Apr 20, 2020permalink

PLShutterbug

Are you referring to the photo showing the Nikon f-mount on the left for $869, a Canon to its right, then a Sony, and finally this Laowa? If so then - ... well, I don’t quite know what to say.

Apr 20, 2020permalink

matsonfamily "quite a long lens on mirrorless"

That's the price you pay when buying a lens that has had its design adapted for mirrorless, rather than being specifically designed for mirrorless.

I'm not sure how this would affect you though, as your gearlist shows that you use Olympus, and this lens isn't available in M43.

You'd be much much better off buying the Olympus 60mm macro which provides a "120mm equivalent" focal length, and is a fraction of the size and weight of the Laowa. It's also extremely sharp, allows AF, and costs less than the Laowa!

Apr 20, 2020permalink

Irakly Shanidze

I'd love to have one... in L-mount.

Apr 20, 2020permalink