Fred Miranda wrote:
So many native great choices for 1:1 macro, although the Laowa is 2:1
MF:
CV 110/2.5 APO
Laowa 100/2.8 APO (No exif)
AF:
FE 90/2.8G
Tokina 100/2.8
I'm waiting for @DavidBM@'s review on the Laowa to decide.
It'll be a little while, as I'm travelling in your country (assuming Colorado and New England count from a Californinan perspective!) and it's for the day job, not photography, so not a lot of time to make images or write reviews.
But I can say a few things:
It's sharp at macro distances and infinity - perhaps very sharp. Comparative stuff will have to wait
It's a bit less sharp - I think - at portrait distances, which if true is odd but I can kind of make up an explanation.
Its not as contrasty as it is sharp.
You really need the hood to avoid glare at longer distances.
I haven't been able to replicate the horrible ring flare I've seen in reviews on line.
The focussing is good at close distance, but the there is very little throw at longer distances. (Unsurprising for a 2:1)
So if you mainly care about true macro and want closer than 1:1 I'd say it's a safe bet.
If you want an all round short tele that also does macro it's a great deal; but if cost is no object I'd get the FE90 or the CV depending on how much you care about AF and how much you plan to use it at distance (both are good every where, but the CV is better at long distances, and I think the 90 might be a touch better near life size) But bear in mind the horrible variance of the FE (It can be great, but make sure you buy from someone where you can return it with no hassle).
Don't hold me to any of this! Very much first impressions still, and I don't get home until the 18th...
DavidBM wrote:
It'll be a little while, as I'm travelling in your country (assuming Colorado and New England count from a Californinan perspective!) and it's for the day job, not photography, so not a lot of time to make images or write reviews.
But I can say a few things:
It's sharp at macro distances and infinity - perhaps very sharp. Comparative stuff will have to wait
It's a bit less sharp - I think - at portrait distances, which if true is odd but I can kind of make up an explanation.
Its not as contrasty as it is sharp.
You really need the hood to avoid glare at longer distances.
I haven't been able to replicate the horrible ring flare I've seen in reviews on line.
The focussing is good at close distance, but the there is very little throw at longer distances. (Unsurprising for a 2:1)
So if you mainly care about true macro and want closer than 1:1 I'd say it's a safe bet.
If you want an all round short tele that also does macro it's a great deal; but if cost is no object I'd get the FE90 or the CV depending on how much you care about AF and how much you plan to use it at distance (both are good every where, but the CV is better at long distances, and I think the 90 might be a touch better near life size) But bear in mind the horrible variance of the FE (It can be great, but make sure you buy from someone where you can return it with no hassle).
Don't hold me to any of this! Very much first impressions still, and I don't get home until the 18th... ...Show more →
For:
(a) Much lower (axial) chromatic aberration than zeiss
(b) MUCH more macro than the zeiss (2:1 vs 1:2)
Against
(a) less contrast than the zeiss at normal non-macro distances
(b) somewhat worse flare than the zeiss.
Yes - the 100 macro-planar. I have a Nikon mount with a Metabones adapter and was wondering about selling it and going with a Sony mount macro lens. Thanks for the info.
Mine came in a few days ago I resorted to purchasing off of ebay because I couldnt find it in stock anywhere. Got to test it albeit briefly. So far I really like the build and image quality. Looking forward to using it more extensively
Hmm. I was planning to get this in the Canon version so I can adapt it to the GFX (no problem with the image circle at close range) and also to the new S1R. I'm a little leery of it not having an actual aperture ring. If the electronics conk out, it's unusable except wide open...
DavidBM wrote:
It'll be a little while, as I'm travelling in your country (assuming Colorado and New England count from a Californinan perspective!) and it's for the day job, not photography, so not a lot of time to make images or write reviews.
But I can say a few things:
It's sharp at macro distances and infinity - perhaps very sharp. Comparative stuff will have to wait
It's a bit less sharp - I think - at portrait distances, which if true is odd but I can kind of make up an explanation.
Its not as contrasty as it is sharp.
You really need the hood to avoid glare at longer distances.
I haven't been able to replicate the horrible ring flare I've seen in reviews on line.
The focussing is good at close distance, but the there is very little throw at longer distances. (Unsurprising for a 2:1)
So if you mainly care about true macro and want closer than 1:1 I'd say it's a safe bet.
If you want an all round short tele that also does macro it's a great deal; but if cost is no object I'd get the FE90 or the CV depending on how much you care about AF and how much you plan to use it at distance (both are good every where, but the CV is better at long distances, and I think the 90 might be a touch better near life size) But bear in mind the horrible variance of the FE (It can be great, but make sure you buy from someone where you can return it with no hassle).
Don't hold me to any of this! Very much first impressions still, and I don't get home until the 18th... ...Show more →
@Fred Miranda
Still testing the Laowa; some great things about it. (especially the size and shape of bokeh balls at high magnification)
But I think I said I couldn't reproduce the ring flare? Dunno what was wrong with me. At longer distances and with the sun in the middle it's serious, sadly. But not a deal breaker for macro use.
DavidBM wrote:
@Fred Miranda@
Still testing the Laowa; some great things about it. (especially the size and shape of bokeh balls at high magnification)
But I think I said I couldn't reproduce the ring flare? Dunno what was wrong with me. At longer distances and with the sun in the middle it's serious, sadly. But not a deal breaker for macro use.
Great stuff David.
I've seen samples of that ring flare but should not be much of an issue at macro. Let me know when your review is ready so I can post it here.
Best,
Fred
