Hi! That is an excellent article; thank you for your insights and experience!
I’m considering this lens for photographing biological inclusions in transparent fossil amber; my subjects are usually situated within the amber .5-2cm from the surface, and I prep the surfaces to be generally flat and highly polished. The refractive index of amber is 1.539-1.545. I also have a 200mm Pentax-A F/4 lens that can be used as a tube lens with a microscope objective on the end, and such a paired lens setup generally produces exceptional photos of amber inclusions.
Do you think that this lens may produce decent quality images in my situation (lighting will be constant with a 150w halogen fiber optic illuminator, camera will be mounted securely in a fixed position, and focus stacking will be employed)?
Thank you!
Lawrence L Huber
April 11, 2021 3:46 pm
Funny how you totally ignore mentioning and comparing the superb Canon macro that starts with 1:1.
What? There’s a whole section of this review titled “Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5× vs Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5×.” It’s hundreds of words long and even has a big comparison chart.
hi spencer – thx for review! i have this lens and was able to remove the rectangular rear baffle easily – i did thins mainly bc of what you describe and it seems the images are better now. what are your thoughts about this? thx andy
Hi Andrew, would you mind explaining how you removed the rectangular rear baffle? And have you encountered any undesired consequences after doing so? I tried gently prying it off with my fingernails to no avail. I often use the lens at 5x between f/2.8 and f/4, and the weird vignette pattern is driving me nuts. Many thanks, Tim Boomer
Simon
April 11, 2021 4:44 am
Thanks Spencer for sharing. I have however some doubts about a part of what you wrote about effective f-stop Ne=N(1+M) where N is the actual f-strop (=focal length / entry diameter) and M is the magnification. Clearly, Ne is a useful concept for assessing the amount of light available in macro-photo. But what about depth of field and diffraction ?
DOF in macro-photography can be approximated as 2NC(M+1)/M^2, where C is the circle of confusion. DOF is therefore proportional to N and to (M+1)/M^2. Of course, DOF can be rewritten as 2NeC/M^2, so one can indeed say that DOF is proportional to Ne and to M^-2, but I can’t see any advantage of expressing DOF as a function of Ne instead of N (this would be different if introducing Ne lead to remove both N en M)
About diffraction, its seems that the key measure is the so called-Airy circle with diameter 2.44 N W, where W is the mean wavelength of light. No mention of Ne or M here, only N. Of course, this could be rewritten as 2.44 Ne W / (1+M), but would be an unnecessarily complicated way of considering diffraction in my view.
No, not on the lab tested images. Good thought though.
SSM
April 8, 2021 5:04 pm
The pictures seem reasonably sharp. I have the Laowa 100mm macro lens with a 2:1 magnification and it also seems reasonably sharp; that is, until I compared it with the Nikkor 105mm micro with cropping to match the 2:1 magnification. There was no comparison. The Nikkor was way sharper, had more contrast, with none of the washed-out look I see here. But of course, you can’t crop your way to a 5:1 magnification!
It’s hard to tell how sharp or blurry a lens is based on downsized images for the web, but any lack of sharpness with this lens is due to minimal depth of field at large apertures, and high diffraction at small apertures. Of its own merits, the Laowa 25mm is a sharp lens (even performs a bit better than the Canon MP-E lens from tests I’ve seen online, not that you’d ever notice in the real world, because DoF and diffraction are much bigger issues). It doesn’t have a washed-out issue that I’ve seen at all, though. I deliberately post-processed a few of these photos with a slight “vintage” look, so maybe that – plus the low depth of field – is what you’re seeing.
I’ve been testing the 100mm Laowa as well, including alongside my Nikon 105mm and a number of other 100mm macro lenses on the market. You’ll have to wait for those reviews to see which is the sharpest, though!
Joachim
April 7, 2021 1:04 pm
I have that lens, too. It is really sharp and using it on a remote controlled slider like MIOPS at least gives me a tiny chance to be able to focus stack, which is otherwise not possible to do properly. A normal macro rail is as cumbersome to use and a little play is always involved with them, otherwise they would not move. Usually that play doesn’t matter with a standard (only) 1:1 lens, but 5:1 is a different story. And it’s long and heavy with camera and flash on it
As well as lighting can become really hard – I tried this lens with the KuangRen flash distributed by Laowa. If the lighting is correct then it’s still a problem to get the pilot light aiming on the right spot in front of the lens, otherwise focusing would be gambling with really bad odds. And the whole rig looks like a massive black grasshopper ready to mow the lawn, the bushes or something else.
I dislike that Laowa is incapable of giving the lens EXIF – sure that keeps the price low but when I think of what the lens doesn’t offer, like spring loads or electrically driven aperture, EXIF data missing, the low price alters quickly to well paid. It’s, after all, a well made yet totally stupid and rather basic to handle lens.
The tripod collar is a joke and the LED ring light Laowa offers is heating the front element massively – and on glossy surfaces the single LEDs can be seen as the diffusion is rather poor.
I got some very good and sharp results – of not moving subjects with a lot of effort to light it nicely.
When I tried to get some snowflakes (yes, I’ve seen Don Komarechka’s article on DPReview…), the DoF was never enough or the diffraction ruined the picture. So, I took the LUMIX S1R instead the poor Z 7, used the new Sigma 105/2.8 DG DN Art with a 2× converter and got also 2:1 (max.) + better focussing + ability to focus stack in camera = higher keeper rate.
Few days ago I catched a 2.5 mm long anthrenus flavipes (furniture carpet beetle) with the Laowa and the Kuang Ren flash. Although I was impressed: at f/11 the DoF is just not enough and a living and wandering beetle is impossible to focusstack.
Spencer, could you please elaborate on “For all of these images, I set the aperture ring on the Laowa to f/2.8, which is an effective aperture of f/16.8.”
As the Laowa could not focus on infinity, there’s no way how to calculate “an effective aperture”. Focal length usually is given on infinity – and the 4.5 cm max distance (from the front lens, the effective distance measure from sensor pane is 17 cm at 2.5:1 and 22 cm at 5:1). I measure a front lens ø of a bit more than 14 mm. 25/14 = 1.78, obviously wrong. But why should Laowa sell a f/2.8 lens which effectively has f/16.8?
It’s an optical effect present in every lens at high magnifications, not just this one. Sometimes called the bellows effect. You can read more about it here: www.bhphotovideo.com/explo…-and-macro
It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the Laowa, but it does mean that your exposure, depth of field, and diffraction at 5× magnification are all going to be as if you’re at f/16.8, even though the lens’s aperture ring (and the aperture’s physical size) imply that you’d be at f/2.8.
Whenever the word “equivalent” appears, I know, there’s something highly theoretical yet impractical going on. I don’t believe in this “equivalence” religion because too much influences are not even remotely included in any formula.
Meaning, it simply has no practical value. Yes, the longer the tube between lens and sensor, the more light is needed. But coming up with things like f/16.8 is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean “you are ridiculous”. ;)
At first, each glass and therefore each les has a different transmission index, which f-numbers don’t tell.
At second, the calculation of shutter speed, aperture, focal length and distance to subject is simply too complex to be calculated in advance – I like your way to expose until you’re happy with the result.
And since the lens doesn’t deliver aperture numbers in EXIF anyway – who gives anything on a highly theoretical f-number?
I noticed to steer clear of f-numbers smaller than f/5.6 when I need maximum resolution. For the DoF, the only way is focus stacking, everything else is limiting the sharpness because of massive diffraction.
In theory, the formula on B&H website is only a comparison from the f-number of the lens, focused on infinity, to the lower f-number (being f/4.8 lower than f/2.8). But the Laowa lens can’t reach infinity. So, it would be correct to start with f/6.3 (2.5:1, wide open aperture).
And the equation is only meaningful in case you use an external exposure meter or are calculating the flash exposure by using a guide number.
The guide numbers are usually calculated at 1 m distance, at ISO 100 and the result is an f-number… But as soon as you can go closer with the flash, the guide number increases, So, a macro tube or macro lens looses light, but the flash brings it back – it’s sometimes not easy to bring the flash power down from over-exposure.
No, that’s not true, it has plenty of practical value.
I should mention, just like you said to me, this is nothing against you or your photography, which I’ve seen before and really liked. I’m sure you’re getting good photos with this lens. But you’re also confidently proclaiming what people should or should not care about, on a topic that you don’t have a clear understanding of. It’s far from irrelevant or some “equivalence religion” that only matters to mathematicians.
For example, take a look at the sample 100% crops in this review at 5× magnification. There is an extraordinary loss of sharpness at the apertures f/16 and f/22 due to diffraction – many times more than what you would normally see at those apertures. That’s because you’re not really at f/16 or f/22 at all; you’re at f/96 and f/132 due to the bellows effect.
Think of the beginner photographer who has heard f/16 is a good aperture for macro photography. If they get this lens, set the aperture ring to f/16, and use it at 5× magnification, they would effectively be shooting at f/96 without even realizing it, thus losing a ton of sharpness to diffraction. When I use this lens day-to-day, I constantly think about effective aperture, lest I run into major diffraction issues. (And, since my flash is manual, bad exposures. Keeping the aperture ring locked in place while changing magnification would give me inconsistent exposures at a given flash power.)
Effective aperture is extremely important and practical in the real world at these magnifications – just as important as setting your aperture at all.
I recommend reading the B&H link again. Your quote, “In theory, the formula on B&H website is only a comparison from the f-number of the lens, focused on infinity, to the lower f-number (being f/4.8 lower than f/2.8)” shows a misunderstanding of this topic. Otherwise, I’m concerned that our discussion is going to be incoherent to one another, let alone Photography Life’s unsuspecting readers who wander by. (Check your email for my earlier version of this comment that goes into more specifics, but is way too long to fit here.)
Hi Spencer, I checked my e-mail. Nothing from you or PL.
Well, it comes down to the question how Laowa calculated the f-numbers of this particular lens. Honestly, I don’t care much about the f-value, I just stop down 2 or max. 3 stops, as I’m afraid of diffraction like you.
Then, there’s no f-number included in the EXIF. For any readers wandering by and becoming interested in the lens, that is something worth to mention: After taking the pictures and not taking notes on a paper or smartphone or whatever, there’s simply no way to learn out of possible mistakes (like stopping down to f/16 – I also don’t do this if I want to have max. sharpness on a standard lens).
Speaking of manual flash: It’s important to keep the distance of the flash to the subject when stopping down. Very often the subjects are much smaller than the size of the flash tube, so I need to do testshots anyway – another reason why for me this equation never will get any practical value. My setttings (or rig) often contain multiple light sources at various angles or distances, but I also can switch to TTL flash-metering.
So, for your way of shooting great macros the equation might be helpful, but don’t even think of being able to handle macro lighting just because of the formula. For my way of shooting my macros it is of no use. I set up the lights so they keep their distance relatively to the front element of the lens. I normally check the lighting again if I have to change the lens’ extension. I try to get my highlights not overblown and in post I’m able to lift the shadows if I need to.
If I would try to calculate the aperture change by the equation, the animals in front of the lens would have died until I’m ready to release the shutter. If analyzing distances, apertures, guide numbers and magnification help you – fine. Just don’t do the same mistake that you see in my posts – I never said this applies to all users / owners of the lens. Combination of manual lens, manual flash and manual camera settings is always try and error, I think.
Rob
April 7, 2021 11:52 am
Hello, I have one problem I’d like to point out and I’d like to hear what other people have to say on the issue, that is – Using a non-cpu lens on a Nikon Z camera does not allow me to meter with the “Electronic Analog Exposure Display”. So, Spencer – How was your metering experience with this lens on that Z camera? Thanks, -Rob
Hi Rob, it’s true that in manual mode with this lens, the exposure display bar won’t appear on the Z camera to indicate your exposure vs the meter’s recommendation. But honestly I never use that bar for metering anyway.
When I shoot with this lens under natural light, I’m generally in aperture priority mode, which still works like normal with this and other non-CPU lenses. I just dial in some exposure compensation if the camera is exposing consistently wrong in one direction or another, but otherwise, I let the meter do its thing as the light changes.
When I shoot with a flash instead, it’s true I’m in manual mode, but even with a normal lens I’d be ignoring the indicator. That’s because it doesn’t take my flash into account, so it always thinks I’m exposing way too dark. My settings for flash photography with the Laowa are generally f/32 effective, 1/200 second, and ISO 200. Then I just raise or lower flash intensity if I need to adjust my exposure. (TTL flash still works like normal with this lens, although my usual flash is manual-only.)
Jason
April 7, 2021 11:34 am
Thanks so much for reviewing this lens. I have been thinking of getting into serious beyond-1:1 macro and this is a helpful review for making a decision. I do have extension tubes but on a typical lens (even a macro) it would be hard to get more than 2:1 magnification with them (the extra magnification added is only focal length/ext tube length). I also mounted one lens reversed on another. With a 200mm/50mm combo you get 4x mag but all that glass makes the quality drop like a rock. So, I think something like this or their 2x macro will be my next option.
Sure thing! Seems like the Laowa 25mm would be a good fit for you. I’ve also tested the Laowa 100mm 2× macro lens, and I liked it a lot, but it’s not as useful if you already have a 1:1 macro lens (and especially if you’re already getting 2× with your extension tubes). I’d go with this 25mm lens instead, or the Mitakon 85mm, if your goal is specifically to go beyond 1:1.
Scott Fairbairn
April 7, 2021 9:36 am
Excellent review. I have both the Laowa and the Mitakon. The Laowa is easiest to use from a weight and price perspective, but I love the extra working distance of the Mitakon. I ordered it as soon as it was available. I received it and immediately received an email from them stating a problem with coatings had been discovered, and they paid for it to be shipped back and sent me an updated version once it was ready. There is no problem with inherent sharpness issues with the lens now. It’s too bad the release was tainted. But they are tough lenses to use, and I wouldn’t recommend anyone trying it in the field right off the start. Shoot around the house targets first. A focusing rail is mandatory as well, otherwise too little DOF. But they sure are fun to use.
Thanks, Scott! I had heard from a few sources that the updated Mitakon has much better image quality, and it’s good to hear you confirm it. In my opinion, they should have renamed and re-released the lens to avoid the confusion. Heck, it has a two star average on B&H – that’s going to turn away a bunch of people who didn’t realize the sharpness issue has been fixed.
Hi! That is an excellent article; thank you for your insights and experience!
I’m considering this lens for photographing biological inclusions in transparent fossil amber; my subjects are usually situated within the amber .5-2cm from the surface, and I prep the surfaces to be generally flat and highly polished. The refractive index of amber is 1.539-1.545. I also have a 200mm Pentax-A F/4 lens that can be used as a tube lens with a microscope objective on the end, and such a paired lens setup generally produces exceptional photos of amber inclusions.
Do you think that this lens may produce decent quality images in my situation (lighting will be constant with a 150w halogen fiber optic illuminator, camera will be mounted securely in a fixed position, and focus stacking will be employed)?
Thank you!
Funny how you totally ignore mentioning and comparing the superb Canon macro that starts with 1:1.
What? There’s a whole section of this review titled “Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5× vs Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5×.” It’s hundreds of words long and even has a big comparison chart.
hi spencer – thx for review! i have this lens and was able to remove the rectangular rear baffle easily – i did thins mainly bc of what you describe and it seems the images are better now. what are your thoughts about this?
thx andy
Hi Andrew, would you mind explaining how you removed the rectangular rear baffle? And have you encountered any undesired consequences after doing so? I tried gently prying it off with my fingernails to no avail. I often use the lens at 5x between f/2.8 and f/4, and the weird vignette pattern is driving me nuts.
Many thanks, Tim Boomer
Thanks Spencer for sharing. I have however some doubts about a part of what you wrote about effective f-stop Ne=N(1+M) where N is the actual f-strop (=focal length / entry diameter) and M is the magnification. Clearly, Ne is a useful concept for assessing the amount of light available in macro-photo. But what about depth of field and diffraction ?
According to the excellent page about DOF and diffraction on the web site by Norman Koren
www.normankoren.com/Tutor…/MTF6.html
DOF in macro-photography can be approximated as 2NC(M+1)/M^2, where C is the circle of confusion. DOF is therefore proportional to N and to (M+1)/M^2. Of course, DOF can be rewritten as 2NeC/M^2, so one can indeed say that DOF is proportional to Ne and to M^-2, but I can’t see any advantage of expressing DOF as a function of Ne instead of N (this would be different if introducing Ne lead to remove both N en M)
About diffraction, its seems that the key measure is the so called-Airy circle with diameter 2.44 N W, where W is the mean wavelength of light. No mention of Ne or M here, only N. Of course, this could be rewritten as 2.44 Ne W / (1+M), but would be an unnecessarily complicated way of considering diffraction in my view.
Cheers
Simon
The working f-number (aka effective f-number) is given by:
Nw = (1 + |m|/P)N
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…)_f-number
The level of image-space diffraction depends on Nw, not on N.
Thanks Pete, I looked for the formula on Wikipedia earlier, to no avail!
About vignetting – did you have IBIS on? It combined with the square hole in the back of the lens might cause square vignetting?
No, not on the lab tested images. Good thought though.
The pictures seem reasonably sharp. I have the Laowa 100mm macro lens with a 2:1 magnification and it also seems reasonably sharp; that is, until I compared it with the Nikkor 105mm micro with cropping to match the 2:1 magnification. There was no comparison. The Nikkor was way sharper, had more contrast, with none of the washed-out look I see here. But of course, you can’t crop your way to a 5:1 magnification!
It’s hard to tell how sharp or blurry a lens is based on downsized images for the web, but any lack of sharpness with this lens is due to minimal depth of field at large apertures, and high diffraction at small apertures. Of its own merits, the Laowa 25mm is a sharp lens (even performs a bit better than the Canon MP-E lens from tests I’ve seen online, not that you’d ever notice in the real world, because DoF and diffraction are much bigger issues). It doesn’t have a washed-out issue that I’ve seen at all, though. I deliberately post-processed a few of these photos with a slight “vintage” look, so maybe that – plus the low depth of field – is what you’re seeing.
I’ve been testing the 100mm Laowa as well, including alongside my Nikon 105mm and a number of other 100mm macro lenses on the market. You’ll have to wait for those reviews to see which is the sharpest, though!
I have that lens, too. It is really sharp and using it on a remote controlled slider like MIOPS at least gives me a tiny chance to be able to focus stack, which is otherwise not possible to do properly. A normal macro rail is as cumbersome to use and a little play is always involved with them, otherwise they would not move. Usually that play doesn’t matter with a standard (only) 1:1 lens, but 5:1 is a different story. And it’s long and heavy with camera and flash on it
As well as lighting can become really hard – I tried this lens with the KuangRen flash distributed by Laowa. If the lighting is correct then it’s still a problem to get the pilot light aiming on the right spot in front of the lens, otherwise focusing would be gambling with really bad odds. And the whole rig looks like a massive black grasshopper ready to mow the lawn, the bushes or something else.
I dislike that Laowa is incapable of giving the lens EXIF – sure that keeps the price low but when I think of what the lens doesn’t offer, like spring loads or electrically driven aperture, EXIF data missing, the low price alters quickly to well paid. It’s, after all, a well made yet totally stupid and rather basic to handle lens.
The tripod collar is a joke and the LED ring light Laowa offers is heating the front element massively – and on glossy surfaces the single LEDs can be seen as the diffusion is rather poor.
I got some very good and sharp results – of not moving subjects with a lot of effort to light it nicely.
When I tried to get some snowflakes (yes, I’ve seen Don Komarechka’s article on DPReview…), the DoF was never enough or the diffraction ruined the picture. So, I took the LUMIX S1R instead the poor Z 7, used the new Sigma 105/2.8 DG DN Art with a 2× converter and got also 2:1 (max.) + better focussing + ability to focus stack in camera = higher keeper rate.
Few days ago I catched a 2.5 mm long anthrenus flavipes (furniture carpet beetle) with the Laowa and the Kuang Ren flash. Although I was impressed: at f/11 the DoF is just not enough and a living and wandering beetle is impossible to focusstack.
Spencer, could you please elaborate on “For all of these images, I set the aperture ring on the Laowa to f/2.8, which is an effective aperture of f/16.8.”
As the Laowa could not focus on infinity, there’s no way how to calculate “an effective aperture”. Focal length usually is given on infinity – and the 4.5 cm max distance (from the front lens, the effective distance measure from sensor pane is 17 cm at 2.5:1 and 22 cm at 5:1). I measure a front lens ø of a bit more than 14 mm. 25/14 = 1.78, obviously wrong. But why should Laowa sell a f/2.8 lens which effectively has f/16.8?
It’s an optical effect present in every lens at high magnifications, not just this one. Sometimes called the bellows effect. You can read more about it here: www.bhphotovideo.com/explo…-and-macro
It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the Laowa, but it does mean that your exposure, depth of field, and diffraction at 5× magnification are all going to be as if you’re at f/16.8, even though the lens’s aperture ring (and the aperture’s physical size) imply that you’d be at f/2.8.
Whenever the word “equivalent” appears, I know, there’s something highly theoretical yet impractical going on. I don’t believe in this “equivalence” religion because too much influences are not even remotely included in any formula.
Meaning, it simply has no practical value. Yes, the longer the tube between lens and sensor, the more light is needed. But coming up with things like f/16.8 is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean “you are ridiculous”. ;)
At first, each glass and therefore each les has a different transmission index, which f-numbers don’t tell.
At second, the calculation of shutter speed, aperture, focal length and distance to subject is simply too complex to be calculated in advance – I like your way to expose until you’re happy with the result.
And since the lens doesn’t deliver aperture numbers in EXIF anyway – who gives anything on a highly theoretical f-number?
I noticed to steer clear of f-numbers smaller than f/5.6 when I need maximum resolution. For the DoF, the only way is focus stacking, everything else is limiting the sharpness because of massive diffraction.
In theory, the formula on B&H website is only a comparison from the f-number of the lens, focused on infinity, to the lower f-number (being f/4.8 lower than f/2.8). But the Laowa lens can’t reach infinity. So, it would be correct to start with f/6.3 (2.5:1, wide open aperture).
And the equation is only meaningful in case you use an external exposure meter or are calculating the flash exposure by using a guide number.
The guide numbers are usually calculated at 1 m distance, at ISO 100 and the result is an f-number… But as soon as you can go closer with the flash, the guide number increases, So, a macro tube or macro lens looses light, but the flash brings it back – it’s sometimes not easy to bring the flash power down from over-exposure.
No, that’s not true, it has plenty of practical value.
I should mention, just like you said to me, this is nothing against you or your photography, which I’ve seen before and really liked. I’m sure you’re getting good photos with this lens. But you’re also confidently proclaiming what people should or should not care about, on a topic that you don’t have a clear understanding of. It’s far from irrelevant or some “equivalence religion” that only matters to mathematicians.
For example, take a look at the sample 100% crops in this review at 5× magnification. There is an extraordinary loss of sharpness at the apertures f/16 and f/22 due to diffraction – many times more than what you would normally see at those apertures. That’s because you’re not really at f/16 or f/22 at all; you’re at f/96 and f/132 due to the bellows effect.
Think of the beginner photographer who has heard f/16 is a good aperture for macro photography. If they get this lens, set the aperture ring to f/16, and use it at 5× magnification, they would effectively be shooting at f/96 without even realizing it, thus losing a ton of sharpness to diffraction. When I use this lens day-to-day, I constantly think about effective aperture, lest I run into major diffraction issues. (And, since my flash is manual, bad exposures. Keeping the aperture ring locked in place while changing magnification would give me inconsistent exposures at a given flash power.)
Effective aperture is extremely important and practical in the real world at these magnifications – just as important as setting your aperture at all.
I recommend reading the B&H link again. Your quote, “In theory, the formula on B&H website is only a comparison from the f-number of the lens, focused on infinity, to the lower f-number (being f/4.8 lower than f/2.8)” shows a misunderstanding of this topic. Otherwise, I’m concerned that our discussion is going to be incoherent to one another, let alone Photography Life’s unsuspecting readers who wander by. (Check your email for my earlier version of this comment that goes into more specifics, but is way too long to fit here.)
Hi Spencer, I checked my e-mail. Nothing from you or PL.
Well, it comes down to the question how Laowa calculated the f-numbers of this particular lens. Honestly, I don’t care much about the f-value, I just stop down 2 or max. 3 stops, as I’m afraid of diffraction like you.
Then, there’s no f-number included in the EXIF. For any readers wandering by and becoming interested in the lens, that is something worth to mention: After taking the pictures and not taking notes on a paper or smartphone or whatever, there’s simply no way to learn out of possible mistakes (like stopping down to f/16 – I also don’t do this if I want to have max. sharpness on a standard lens).
Speaking of manual flash: It’s important to keep the distance of the flash to the subject when stopping down. Very often the subjects are much smaller than the size of the flash tube, so I need to do testshots anyway – another reason why for me this equation never will get any practical value. My setttings (or rig) often contain multiple light sources at various angles or distances, but I also can switch to TTL flash-metering.
So, for your way of shooting great macros the equation might be helpful, but don’t even think of being able to handle macro lighting just because of the formula. For my way of shooting my macros it is of no use. I set up the lights so they keep their distance relatively to the front element of the lens. I normally check the lighting again if I have to change the lens’ extension. I try to get my highlights not overblown and in post I’m able to lift the shadows if I need to.
If I would try to calculate the aperture change by the equation, the animals in front of the lens would have died until I’m ready to release the shutter. If analyzing distances, apertures, guide numbers and magnification help you – fine. Just don’t do the same mistake that you see in my posts – I never said this applies to all users / owners of the lens. Combination of manual lens, manual flash and manual camera settings is always try and error, I think.
Hello,
I have one problem I’d like to point out and I’d like to hear what other people have to say on the issue, that is – Using a non-cpu lens on a Nikon Z camera does not allow me to meter with the “Electronic Analog Exposure Display”. So, Spencer – How was your metering experience with this lens on that Z camera? Thanks, -Rob
Hi Rob, it’s true that in manual mode with this lens, the exposure display bar won’t appear on the Z camera to indicate your exposure vs the meter’s recommendation. But honestly I never use that bar for metering anyway.
When I shoot with this lens under natural light, I’m generally in aperture priority mode, which still works like normal with this and other non-CPU lenses. I just dial in some exposure compensation if the camera is exposing consistently wrong in one direction or another, but otherwise, I let the meter do its thing as the light changes.
When I shoot with a flash instead, it’s true I’m in manual mode, but even with a normal lens I’d be ignoring the indicator. That’s because it doesn’t take my flash into account, so it always thinks I’m exposing way too dark. My settings for flash photography with the Laowa are generally f/32 effective, 1/200 second, and ISO 200. Then I just raise or lower flash intensity if I need to adjust my exposure. (TTL flash still works like normal with this lens, although my usual flash is manual-only.)
Thanks so much for reviewing this lens. I have been thinking of getting into serious beyond-1:1 macro and this is a helpful review for making a decision. I do have extension tubes but on a typical lens (even a macro) it would be hard to get more than 2:1 magnification with them (the extra magnification added is only focal length/ext tube length). I also mounted one lens reversed on another. With a 200mm/50mm combo you get 4x mag but all that glass makes the quality drop like a rock. So, I think something like this or their 2x macro will be my next option.
Sure thing! Seems like the Laowa 25mm would be a good fit for you. I’ve also tested the Laowa 100mm 2× macro lens, and I liked it a lot, but it’s not as useful if you already have a 1:1 macro lens (and especially if you’re already getting 2× with your extension tubes). I’d go with this 25mm lens instead, or the Mitakon 85mm, if your goal is specifically to go beyond 1:1.
Excellent review. I have both the Laowa and the Mitakon. The Laowa is easiest to use from a weight and price perspective, but I love the extra working distance of the Mitakon. I ordered it as soon as it was available. I received it and immediately received an email from them stating a problem with coatings had been discovered, and they paid for it to be shipped back and sent me an updated version once it was ready. There is no problem with inherent sharpness issues with the lens now. It’s too bad the release was tainted. But they are tough lenses to use, and I wouldn’t recommend anyone trying it in the field right off the start. Shoot around the house targets first. A focusing rail is mandatory as well, otherwise too little DOF. But they sure are fun to use.
Thanks, Scott! I had heard from a few sources that the updated Mitakon has much better image quality, and it’s good to hear you confirm it. In my opinion, they should have renamed and re-released the lens to avoid the confusion. Heck, it has a two star average on B&H – that’s going to turn away a bunch of people who didn’t realize the sharpness issue has been fixed.
Agreed, it’s too bad really. The lens gives an amazing working distance in comparison.