Laowa introduces 100mm f/2.8 2x Macro APO

[Lou Jost]

An odd design choice leaves a huge empty tube between the front of the lens and the subject at m=1. This takes up a lot of the working distance (though I don't know what proportion). This is an ironic choice, since one of the selling features of the Laowa 2.5x-5x lens was its small, narrow profile compared to the big hulking light-blocking tube of the Canon MPE65.

[Deanimator]

Is there a Tokina macro that goes to 2X? The only ones I know stop at 1x. So far as I know, this Laowa lens is the first lens in the 100mm range that goes from infinity to 2x.

That's why I said "price-wise".

When I bought mine, the Tokina was the only decent macro lens anywhere in my price range. The Laowa is in about the same price range.

[ray_parkhurst]

here's another review:
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos ... aowa100f28

maybe surprising is the rather high vignetting at 2.8 (over 2EV) and also that this review finds resolution peaking at F5.6 (maybe because they measured at lower magnification)

Seems like it should be a great lens on APS-C.

[mjkzz]

This lens was on sale in China, probably for while now as I can see some vendors sold quite a few already. I could not find working distance info, so I have to ask someone who seems very close to Laowa about it, I got back info:

at 1x WD = 90mm
at 2x WD = 70mm

these are rough measurements.

[tomek770101]

I already have it. The lens came to me from China. I immediately started comparison with the previous version 60mm / 2.8 2: 1. the first version of Laowa 60mm 2: 1 is much sharper. I do not understand where the 100mm is APO ..!

[ray_parkhurst]

I already have it. The lens came to me from China. I immediately started comparison with the previous version 60mm / 2.8 2: 1. the first version of Laowa 60mm 2: 1 is much sharper. I do not understand where the 100mm is APO ..!

I hope you can show some comparison images.

[Yawns]

I can not see a good reason to be interested in this lens ...

- Having the 60mm 2:1, I see no reason worth spending another 500+ euros ...
- Not having ... apparently is better to wait for the Mitakon 1-5x, ...even if it costs an extra 200 euros
(but also if the Mitakon costs more than 700 euros ceases to be a good alternative to an MPE-65 (used) ..

[ray_parkhurst]

I can not see a good reason to be interested in this lens ...

- Having the 60mm 2:1, I see no reason worth spending another 500+ euros ...
- Not having ... apparently is better to wait for the Mitakon 1-5x, ...even if it costs an extra 200 euros
(but also if the Mitakon costs more than 700 euros ceases to be a good alternative to an MPE-65 (used) ..

If the contention from tomek770101 that the 100mm lens is much less sharp than the 60mm then I agree with you, but you can't really compare this lens to the Mitakon IMO. Not the same application.

[Yawns]

you can't really compare this lens to the Mitakon IMO. Not the same application.

Yes.. I totally forgot the infinity focus and the range under 1:1.

[apt403]

here's another review:
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos ... aowa100f28

maybe surprising is the rather high vignetting at 2.8 (over 2EV) and also that this review finds resolution peaking at F5.6 (maybe because they measured at lower magnification)

The seemingly lack of LoCA per that review makes this the first macro lens I've wanted in quite a while - It's my only complaint w/ the Tokina 100mm.

I'm curious to see how this performs with a 2x teleconverter. I regularly use a vintage TC-200 on the back of the Tokina, and the CA becomes quite bad in certain situations.

[RobertOToole]

I already have it. The lens came to me from China. I immediately started comparison with the previous version 60mm / 2.8 2: 1. the first version of Laowa 60mm 2: 1 is much sharper. I do not understand where the 100mm is APO ..!

The problem is that it could very well be a sample variation with a de-centered element. I tested the Laowa 60mm 2:1 vs Oshiro 60mm 2:1:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-60mm-lens-test

The Oshiro in the test had a tilted element with one side clearly softer than the other.

A year or two ago I ordered a Mitakon Zhongyi 20mm f/2 4.5x, I unpacked it, took 5 test images, re-packaged it, and returned it the next day. The IQ was some of the worst I have ever seen, soft and tons of CAs. I never did figure out what the issue was with that lens.

Recently read a comment from lensrentals.com blog that one good drop, a dented filter ring is a good indication, means almost surely a de-centered element on some lenses. Also 100% of the Art and Sports line from Sigma are individually QC'd for example but Rokinon and other smaller manufacturers (and Oly and Pana MFT lenses) are really poor with QA with a much higher return rate with lenses arriving with de-centering issues.

(lensrentals.com reports that Sigma now has less sample variation than Nikon with Canon being #1 for a long time).

Robert

[RobertOToole]

I just noticed that the Laowa page for this lens includes a stacked shot by our own John Hallmèn. Wonder if he is at liberty to comment?

--Chris S.

Hi Chris,

I wouldn't be even a little surprised if they borrowed this from facebook, or that Makro site he works with. Maybe, maybe not. Also I don't see a small company like that paying anything for a photo anyway.

I've seen this a lot working as a professional photographer for the last 14-19 years. A single photo used to pay about $3200 as a set industry price. Now you would be lucky to get $3.20. At best a free $400 lens which isn't even worth it in my opinion.

That said I would like to hear his thoughts though

Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

Recently read a comment from lensrentals.com blog that one good drop, a dented filter ring is a good indication, means almost surely a de-centered element on some lenses. Also 100% of the Art and Sports line from Sigma are individually QC'd for example

Even though the Art lenses are quality-controlled, our most popular photography store will mistreat it on their end, undoing any QC from the manufacturer. A few weeks ago I ordered the 40mm Art lens from BH, and had it shipped to my family. When I arrived in the US to visit the family and pick up my lens, I found the box had a side completely crushed in. To my horror, there was only one little air bag pad, on only one side of the box, and it was deflated. A box has six sides! They shipped a $1000+ lens without any padding on five sides, and grossly inadequate padding on one side. They did even worse with the Panasonic S1R I bought. This has been going on for several years. I can remember when they had great packaging years ago. Sorry for the rant, I'll start a new thread about this.

[Chris S.]

I just noticed that the Laowa page for this lens includes a stacked shot by our own John Hallmèn. Wonder if he is at liberty to comment?

--Chris S.

Hi Chris,

I wouldn't be even a little surprised if they borrowed this from facebook, or that Makro site he works with. Maybe, maybe not. Also I don't see a small company like that paying anything for a photo anyway.

I've seen this a lot working as a professional photographer for the last 14-19 years. A single photo used to pay about $3200 as a set industry price. Now you would be lucky to get $3.20. At best a free $400 lens which isn't even worth it in my opinion.

That said I would like to hear his thoughts though

Best,

Robert

Robert,

Agreed that the problems you described are all too real. But in this case, I get the impression that Laowa dealt honestly with the photographers whose work Laowa posted on its Website.

I can share some of John Hallmèn's impressions of this lens, per PM's about six weeks ago. John gave me permission to share them, but I didn't get around to posting. However, I certainly found John's comments useful.

Quoting John (bold-facing is mine):

• I have had the 100/2.8 for a few weeks now, but unfortunately my main camera has been in for repair a good part of this period. So I really haven't had the time to use it as much as I would have liked.
  
  Also, I've only used it on MFT (Oly em1mkII) so far. For field work it's a relatively chunky piece of glass (compared to something like the Zuiko 60/2.8 which pretty much has become my standard lens), but on the other hand the magnification range (minimum FOV of less than 9 mm) is very useful and sort of covers what a standard macro + Raynox DCR-250 can do (but with better IQ).
  
  My general impression is that they've designed a 0.25X to 2X lens with an "infinity-feature" rather than an infinity to 1X lens with a 2X feature. Focus throw below 1:4X is very short and has struck me as difficult to master with precision the few times I've tried (perhaps you can get used to it?). Image quality at 2X is very good on MFT (very nice results with high resolution mode tells me they've really taken this part of the range seriously when designing it). Possibly my new best option at 2X which has been a weak spot in my lens arsenal... But I'm yet to do any sort of head-to-head comparisons in terms of image quality. My results haven't been 100% APO but I just realized that one reason COULD be that I've had a protective filter attached since day 2 after a scary experience day 1... I never use protective filters but with this one you REALLY have to in case you ever want to use it outside. I'll elaborate when I have more time but let's just say that unless a protective filter is somehow detrimental to image quality the fact that it's not built in to the lens seem very strange!
  
  Working distance at 2:1 is 73 mm - haven't measured FL yet!

The bit I boldfaced stood out to me as key to understanding what this lens does best. It made me re-evaluate the purpose of this lens. I no longer see it as a potential replacement for my general purpose 105mm macro lens. But it might be a nice adjunct to it, for 0.25x-2x, with occasional excursions to lower magnifications. I've certainly had projects where such an optic would have been ideal.

Best,

--Chris S.

[chris_ma]

When I arrived in the US to visit the family and pick up my lens, I found the box had a side completely crushed in. To my horror, there was only one little air bag pad, on only one side of the box, and it was deflated. A box has six sides! They shipped a $1000+ lens without any padding on five sides, and grossly inadequate padding on one side. They did even worse with the Panasonic S1R I bought. This has been going on for several years. I can remember when they had great packaging years ago.

I had several experiences like this recently from many different online shops. the craziest was photospecialist who sent me a used Hasselblad 203FE thrown into the cardbox with only the large air bag pads - like no camera styrofoam, no bubble wrap, simply the bare camera! of course the air bags were deflated (the camera has some edges) and was essentially sliding around in the box with no protection. of course it was broken on arrival (and that's a camera that can't be replaced anymore).

best packaging I got was from Ffordes and from Thorlabs.
On my last order from Thorlabs one package arrived severely dented like it has been dropped from several feet, and I was already worried, but when opening it I saw that they packaged it with perfect custom padding and the inside was completely unharmed.

just some anecdotal experiences
chris