Laowa/Venus 15mm F4 1:1 wide angle macro lens (II)

orionmystery · Post by **orionmystery** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:10 am

Part II. You can find Part I here: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=28016

More shots from the fun lens.
Male Long-armed Scarab (Cheirotonus peracanus?). Montane forest, Malaysia.

Venus 15mm sample shot_MG_1852 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

As you can see, the sky was drab and we were in a backyard with fences in the background, that was why I didn't back away from the subject more. The background just wasn't very ideal.

Venus 15mm sample shot_MG_1848 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

Bad hair day......giant caterpillar

Venus 15mm sample shot F11_MG_1680 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

Red assassin bug

Venus 15mm sample shot_MG_1694 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

Newly emerged damselfly

Venus 15mm sample shot_MG_1703 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

More shots in the Laowa 15mm Flickr group: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2784583@N25/

Iainp · Post by **Iainp** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:08 am

Lovely. I'm definitely going to invest in one of these, or perhaps the Sigma 15mm wide angle, which also seems to be very popular for this kind of imaging. If you, or anyone else, has a suggestion as to which is the best way to go for wide-angle macro (sub £1000, preferably sub £600) for Nikon small frame camera, I'd be interested to hear. I'm off to the Venezuelan Andes in month, and would like something like this in my bag by then!

orionmystery · Post by **orionmystery** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:07 am

Iainp wrote:Lovely. I'm definitely going to invest in one of these, or perhaps the Sigma 15mm wide angle, which also seems to be very popular for this kind of imaging. If you, or anyone else, has a suggestion as to which is the best way to go for wide-angle macro (sub £1000, preferably sub £600) for Nikon small frame camera, I'd be interested to hear. I'm off to the Venezuelan Andes in month, and would like something like this in my bag by then!

Thank you, Iainp. I have no prior experience with wide angle macro & lenses. I am sure someone else can chip in on this for you.

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:34 am

Iainp,
The originality and main interest of the Venus 15mm is its close focus ability.
AFAIK more conventional (and convenient for general photography) wide angles do not focus so close.

the most clever former approach with a DSLR was done some time agoby Charles Krebs:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?p=29118

Some compacts are able to focus very close at wide angle position

johan · Post by **johan** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:27 pm

This looks so much fun! That beetle in shots 1 & 2... what an eye catching image =)

orionmystery · Post by **orionmystery** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:46 pm

johan wrote:This looks so much fun! That beetle in shots 1 & 2... what an eye catching image =)

Thank you, Johan!

Iainp · Post by **Iainp** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:05 am

Thanks Pau, I'll do some more research before committing. I had a quick play with a Sigma 15mm in a shop recently, and was surprised how close it would go. In the specs it says 5.9 inches minimum focus distance I think but it seemed even closer than that.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:08 am

Kurt, thanks for the excellent images with this very interesting new lens!

Iainp wrote:I had a quick play with a Sigma 15mm in a shop recently, and was surprised how close it would go. In the specs it says 5.9 inches minimum focus distance I think but it seemed even closer than that.

Lens manufacturers often quote minimum focus distance as being from subject to focal plane (sensor plane). I have no idea why this is considered to be useful, but it's one of the standards.

For macro, the important issue is what's the maximum magnification. As I read the specs, the Sigma 15mm is not very impressive in that regard.

From http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... _EX_DG.htm

Maximum Reproduction Ratio 1:4

--Rik

headshotboy · Post by **headshotboy** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:42 am

rjlittlefield wrote: Lens manufacturers often quote minimum focus distance as being from subject to focal plane (sensor plane). I have no idea why this is considered to be useful, but it's one of the standards.

It has no special use - but it's inevitable when your lens changes its' length while focusing or changing FR for zoom lenses.

Iainp · Post by **Iainp** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:51 am

That's very helpful Rik, thanks. I'll probably go for the Venus then, if I can get one in time for the trip.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:17 am

headshotboy wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote: Lens manufacturers often quote minimum focus distance as being from subject to focal plane (sensor plane). I have no idea why this is considered to be useful, but it's one of the standards.
It has no special use - but it's inevitable when your lens changes its' length while focusing or changing FR for zoom lenses.

I don't understand what "inevitable" means here. To my mind, they could equally well choose to report minimum lens-to-subject distance, which in conjunction with reproduction ratio (optical magnification) seems like a much more useful number. Can you explain what you had in mind?

--Rik

headshotboy · Post by **headshotboy** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:45 am

rjlittlefield wrote:... they could equally well choose to report minimum lens-to-subject distance, which in conjunction with reproduction ratio (optical magnification) seems like a much more useful number. Can you explain what you had in mind?

))
How would you report L-t-S distance for a lens, which changes its length while focusing?

Having MP-E65 - everything is clear and easy, you're focusing just by a distance.

Having, for example, non-macro lens with rings - ?
Having, for another example, macro-zoom lens - ?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:16 pm

(Replying by post, since my PM never got picked up...)

headshotboy wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:... they could equally well choose to report minimum lens-to-subject distance, which in conjunction with reproduction ratio (optical magnification) seems like a much more useful number. Can you explain what you had in mind?
))
How would you report L-t-S distance for a lens, which changes its length while focusing?

Having MP-E65 - everything is clear and easy, you're focusing just by a distance.

Having, for example, non-macro lens with rings - ?
Having, for another example, macro-zoom lens - ?

The answer to your first question is that I would report lens-to-subject distance by measuring the distance from lens to subject. It's just the same procedure as measuring subject-to-sensor-plane, except for stopping the measurement at the lens instead of going farther back to the sensor.

The answers to your other questions are similar.

The measurement I'm suggesting is also called "working distance", which is how it's labeled on the barrel of my MP-E 65. For the MP-E 65, knowing that the W.D. varies from 101mm at minimum magnification to only 41 mm at maximum magnification is very useful. It is much more useful than knowing that the "Minimum Focus Distance" for the MP-E is quoted as 9.4" (23.88 cm) from the sensor plane, particularly since it turns out that value occurs at minimum magnification (1X), not at maximum magnification (5X), where the same number is more like 12".

These measurements are always done at some particular focus setting, so it doesn't make any difference if the lens changes length between settings, or if you insert extension tubes, or add closeup lenses, or whatever.

--Rik