while I personally prefer 100mm-ish macro lenses, I know lots of people have been begging for someone to release a modern 180mm Macro lens, and Laowa has released their 180mm f/4.5 for just $499, 1.5x magnification, AF, native Z mount (also available on E mount or Canon EF, or manual focus only in RF mount). AF, however, is only for normal focus distances (1.5m to infinity). Macro range is Manual Focus only.
This does seem really interesting. I will keep a close eye on it, could be a great "critter" lens.
I'm not sure how I feel about the odd AF/MF design.
Also doesn't look like it has a tripod collar, which is nice to have on these longer macros- but it also seems to be a pretty compact lens.
I think for the price it might get a pass. Also really small for what it is- so this could be an awesome "in the field" lens for flowers and lizards and bugs.
But yeah, AF is so good these days, it can still be very effective at macro distances.
In modern times with focus stacking, the lack of macro AF makes the lens far less interesting to many potential users I suspect. Not that a MF long macro is useless, or that in fact many people shoot bugs and stack without AF already, but without AF it loses a distinction from legacy long macros.
Regardless, nice to see a modern long macros, even if it is actually MF. No adapters and native mirrorless mount design appear to have made for a decent reduction in size.
I'm curious about it. I like the size and weight and don't think the slow max aperture will be much problem. I don't think it'll replace my insect and small critter lens, the FE 70-200/4 GII, which only gets 1:2, but I do find the OSS and AF to be a notch or two above what's come before so far as close focusing. It could replace my F-mount IRIX 150/2.8, which is mostly used for still life and flowers, and I'd be happy to lose the size and weight there.
I do like that it appears to have a decent amount of focus turn between infinity and 20m. That's luxurious for a macro lens, and would make all-around use much more pleasant. I also like the color. I've never had a purple lens. My only big reservation is focus feel. The IRIX, while painful to use at distances greater than 10m, allows me to adjust the focus tension and even lock it down when I've got the lens on a rail and am adjusting focus with that. Still, it'll be worth a try at some point between now and wildflower season next spring.
EB-1 wrote:
No IS, no AF except at distance, and no tripod collar. Is this the 1990s?
EBH
It's odd. The product shots on B&H show a tripod mount, but it's not listed in the box contents. The shorty hood is also pictured but not listed. So who knows? Maybe it's all a la carte or maybe they're just very bad at communicating to their retailers.
I assumed there was a hood and I guess they did not show the tripod mount in the main images.
I just don't understand the lack of AF. I suppose the manual focus is moving a whole section of the lens or something.
I suggested light 180/4.5 macro in one thread, using plastic kit type mount to make it lighter if needed. Idk if they used a lot of plastic but I wonder if they saw my post.
Very light but mf about 5ft or less probably a bit of a deal breaker. Quite a bit. Intetesting though, I'm ef anyway and can take EF -RF adapter so not necessarily big deal there's no Rf mount having af
I haven't had much luck using tripod collars on more mid sized lenses, blurry photos, might have lost 180 Tamron one. It's only 1.15 lbs doesn't need one imo
He shows that the Laowa is visibly less sharp than his Tamron 90 Macro.
So I bet it's less sharp than MC 105.
DA says that 90 and 180 mm lenses can't be compared directly. It seems a rather biased assertion (he didn't buy the lens, Laowa gave it to him...).My Micro-Nikkor lenses must be equally sharp, at least in close-ups, independently of the FL (I owned most of Micro-Nikkors, from 55-60 to 200, both AF and MF). The lesser sharpness might be due to the longer FL, he says. I see no reason why a 200 macro lens should be less sharp than a 90 mm lens.
The reason is that this lens is inexpensive, and its low price reflects its inferior optical quality, despite the use of APO glass.
Another issue he didn't discuss is the effective aperture in macro. Does the aperture change at closer distances (e.g., the Micro-Nikkor 70-180 did NOT change its aperture)? If yes, how much?
BTW, I will continue using my 105/2.8G VR; with the TC14E it reaches 1.4X at the same working distance as 1:1, i.e. 15.4 cm (you know, at the minimum focus distance, the TC doesn't alter the WD). Yes, the quality degrades, but I am not sure how much better this new Laowa is
EB-1 wrote:
I assumed there was a hood and I guess they did not show the tripod mount in the main images.
I just don't understand the lack of AF. I suppose the manual focus is moving a whole section of the lens or something.
EBH
It almost feels like they were trying to serve two distinct user groups with one lens. Want a light, slow AF tele with a decent MFD? Here you go. Want a light, slow macro tele that's MF, as good macros should be? Here you go. I guess it would be a blessing if both sound really attractive to you.
Ripolini wrote:
He shows that the Laowa is visibly less sharp than his Tamron 90 Macro.
So I bet it's less sharp than MC 105.
DA says that 90 and 180 mm lenses can't be compared directly. It seems a rather biased assertion (he didn't buy the lens, Laowa gave it to him...).My Micro-Nikkor lenses must be equally sharp, at least in close-ups, independently of the FL (I owned most of Micro-Nikkors, from 55-60 to 200, both AF and MF). The lesser sharpness might be due to the longer FL, he says. I see no reason why a 200 macro lens should be less sharp than a 90 mm lens.
The reason is that this lens is inexpensive, and its low price reflects its inferior optical quality, despite the use of APO glass.
Another issue he didn't discuss is the effective aperture in macro. Does the aperture change at closer distances (e.g., the Micro-Nikkor 70-180 did NOT change its aperture)? If yes, how much?
BTW, I will continue using my 105/2.8G VR; with the TC14E it reaches 1.4X at the same working distance as 1:1, i.e. 15.4 cm (you know, at the minimum focus distance, the TC doesn't alter the WD). Yes, the quality degrades, but I am not sure how much better this new Laowa is ...Show more →
Like i wrote - it's a mixed bag.
It's not for me but i'm sure it will go on sale soon enough and at like below 400$ it will find people who want it. Not everybody need best of the best for a bag of money.
I LOVE the Sigma 180OS F-mount. So sharp I sold my 200/4 micro. It's a razor @ 2.8 and stays that way with tcs. Just as brilliant on a Z9 as it is with the 850. It's big but it's special.
I have the merely basic Sigma 150/2.8 no-OS. IQ is excellent though.
For me the main benefit is being short enough to fit vertically in a bag/backpack divider 6-6.5" depth.
It would be great if Sigma would roll out newer 150-180mm macros for the MILS mounts.
The ultra-low distortion and low vignetting at f/5.6 regardless of focus distance which, given the great size and weight, should make it an easy pano lens, pushed me over the edge. I pre-ordered.
Also, to the question of the tripod mount, at the very end of the B&H advertising, it does say the tripod support will be available separately.
Great review from Bastian as usual.
But, I'd already preordered. For me it ticks every box. I like manual focus lenses. And, I like long tele. I don't like weight and size. This gives me all the things I look for in a lens. I can see architecture, landscape and close focus work with this. For a while, I'd been using an Leica R 180 which is great but too large and heavy. This while not in the same league is great alternative. Again, I'm not an auto guy, never was. Use only when necessary like on the Q43 and somewhat the GFX 100ii tough even there I adapt manual glass.
Now, I do get that others dig auto focus and such. Growing up with manual only is more a personal love and this fills the bill.
Oh, and portraits on this look fine. I've got fast lenses for more melty bokeh when desired.
Apologies for long post.
Joe D
It looks like the firmware update enables autofocus even at macro scales. However, the autofocus range is limited to perhaps a few centimeters, so you need to manually focus to get it close before the autofocus can work.
I bought one, along with the optional less collar/foot.
Physically, it is smaller and lighter that the Z MC 105.
A firmware upgrade eliminated most of the restrictions on AF focal length, which increases its usefulness.
I find the IQ to be very good. Pixel peepers may find it not a great answer the Z MC 105, but it is certainly as good as any of teh F mount Nikon Micros.
I loved the Sigma 150 and 180 macros, but they are beasts!
